Government

The Gaitanist Army of Colombia (EGC), the country’s largest criminal organisation, has announced it will temporarily suspend peace talks in Qatar after Colombian President Gustavo Petro reportedly pledged to target its leader.

In a social media post on Wednesday, the EGC, sometimes referred to as the Gulf Clan, indicated the suspension would continue until it received updates from the Petro administration.

“By order of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the EGC delegation at the negotiating table will temporarily suspend talks with the government to consult and clarify the veracity of the information,” the group wrote in a statement on X.

“If the media reports are true, this would be a violation of good faith and the Doha commitments.”

Colombia’s Defence Minister Pedro Sanchez confirmed the reports later on Wednesday, sharing a list of three drug “kingpins” that Petro’s administration would prioritise as “high-level targets”.

Among the three targets was the EGC’s leader, Jesus Avila Villadiego, alias Chiquito Malo. A reward for his capture was set at 5 billion Colombian pesos, equivalent to $1.37m.

The other two “kingpins” included top rebel commanders identified only by their aliases: Ivan Mordisco and Pablito.

The public announcement echoes a private one cemented during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday at the White House, when Petro met United States President Donald Trump in person for the first time.

For months, Trump has pressured the Petro administration to take more “aggressive action” to combat narcotics trafficking out of Colombia.

In response, Petro and his team presented the Trump administration on Tuesday with a dossier on their counter-narcotics operations titled, “Colombia: America’s #1 Ally Against Narcoterrorists”.

The presentation featured statistics on cocaine seizures, programmes to eradicate coca crops, and the high-level arrests and killings of drug lords.

But the commitment to collaborate with the US in the pursuit of Chiquito Malo’s arrest has thrown negotiations with the EGC into peril.

It has also raised questions about the future of Petro’s signature policy, “Total Peace”, which was designed to open talks with rebel groups and criminal networks in an effort to halt Colombia’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

The EGC is a major criminal group with almost 10,000 members, according to a recent report by the Ideas for Peace Foundation.

In December, the US also designated the group as a “foreign terrorist organisation”, as part of its ongoing efforts to crack down on drug trafficking.

The EGC has been engaged in high-level discussions with the Colombian government in Doha since September 2025. The two parties signed a “commitment to peace” on December 5, which outlined a roadmap to the EGC putting down arms.

The first step towards demobilisation was for the group to gather its forces in temporary zones, beginning in March. The government had suspended arrest warrants in December for EGC commanders, including Chiquito Malo, who were due to move to these areas.

But the government’s plans to detain the drug lord, declared yesterday at the White House, destabilised this process, according to analysts.

“[The EGC] interpret this as a direct threat where, if any commander who has arrest warrants … goes to the temporary zones, he runs a high risk,” said Gerson Arias, a conflict and security investigator at the Ideas for Peace Foundation, a Bogota-based think tank.

The Colombian Supreme Court in January approved Chiquito Malo’s extradition to the US in the eventuality of his capture, but the final decision to extradite him resides with the president.

By declaring the drug lord a “target” at the White House, Petro signalled support for capturing and extraditing the EGC commander.

Potential US involvement in the operation also appears to have unsettled the criminal organisation, according to experts.

“It is very different for Chiquito Malo to be pursued solely by the Colombian government than for him to become a target of joint strategic value involving US intelligence,” said Laura Bonilla, a deputy director at the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation, a Colombian think tank.

Although the EGC suspended its peace talks on Wednesday, it stressed that it remained open to resuming negotiations.

“It should be clarified that the suspension is temporary, not permanent, which indicates that they [the talks] will resume shortly,” a lawyer for the group told Al Jazeera, on condition of anonymity.

The representative added that, for talks to continue, the EGC requires that “legal and personal security guarantees” and “the commitments agreed upon in Doha, Qatar, are fulfilled”.

SANTIAGO, Chile, Feb. 4 (UPI) — Chileans want more restrictive laws for unauthorized migrants and even the imposition of prison sentences, according to the latest Plaza Pública survey by public opinion firm Cadem.

The survey results were released after president-elect José Antonio Kast conducted a tour of Central America and the Caribbean this week.

Kast, who will take office in March, met with the presidents of the Dominican Republic, Panama and El Salvador to discuss security and organized crime in the region.

In El Salvador, he also visited the Terrorism Confinement Center, or Cecot, the notorious maximum-security mega prison promoted by President Nayib Bukele.

The Cadem survey found that 79% of respondents believe Chile should adopt a more restrictive migration policy than the current one. In addition, 74% said they agree with having a law that sets prison sentences for irregular migration, while 81% approve of expelling all irregular migrants.

However, 61% said they would support regularizing migrants who can prove they have formal employment.

Immigration was one of the most prominent issues in Kast’s presidential campaign, with proposals such as expelling irregular migrants, installing physical barriers at unauthorized border crossings and limiting the transfer of remittances abroad.

Chile’s migration conflict centers on a crisis of irregular immigration that has strained public services, including health care, education and housing, and increased perceptions of insecurity.

Kast has promoted with neighboring countries the opening of a humanitarian corridor to allow migrants to leave. He has also announced that during his first 90 days in office, he will submit to Congress a bill to classify irregular entry into Chile as a crime, which is currently considered only an administrative offense.

“The migration issue was a central topic of the presidential campaign that has just ended and, therefore, it will also be a central issue for the government that begins in March,” Republican Party lawmaker Stephan Schubert, tied to the incoming president’s coalition, told UPI.

For that reason, he emphasized the need to work on a migration reform to address all the changes that are required.

“It is an issue that needs to be put in order by the future government, and that involves strengthening borders to prevent irregular crossings, but also modifying legislation to establish irregular entry into Chile as a crime,” he said.

Schubert also said priority must be given to “the expulsion of those foreign citizens who, by administrative resolution or court ruling, must leave our country.”

Deputy-elect Fabián Ossandón, from the right-wing Partido de la Gente, told UPI that Kast should push for a deep migration reform, with a priority focus on the northern regions of the country, which border Peru and Bolivia.

“That agenda must include border control with technology and intelligence, effective expulsions of those who violate regulations, regularization processes with clear and demanding requirements, and real regional coordination with neighboring countries,” he said.

One obstacle for the new government is that it will not hold a majority in Congress to approve all of its reforms with the support of the center-right alone, forcing it to seek consensus.

Migration policy specialist Byron Duhalde, of the Center for Migration Studies at the University of Santiago, said the future president’s idea of modifying migration categories requires changes to the law.

“An absolute majority in Congress is required to approve modifications. The parties that are part of the new government do not have the necessary votes,” Duhalde said.

However, Ossandón defended the possibility, arguing that “there is broad-based citizen support to move forward with deep changes, and Congress has a responsibility to legislate on the real priorities of people and the country.”

He added: “On this matter, it is key to act with determination and coordination to push for an effective migration reform that provides certainty, order and clear rules, and that can be implemented as quickly as possible.”

Political analyst Guillermo Bustamante, an assistant professor in the the Faculty of Communications of the University of the Andes, said Kast will be forced to build bridges to advance legislative reforms.

“Here, the figures of his political committee, the presidents of governing and opposition parties, as well as parliamentary caucus leaders, will be relevant,” Bustamante said, adding that the first days of the new administration will be key for the opposition to define its own course of action.

“What we have seen so far does not allow us to ensure that migration will find an agreement between the parties, nor that there is an intention to engage in dialogue around this issue with a 20-year outlook,” he said.

Nevertheless, Duhalde noted that given the positions of political parties on migration, significant cross-party agreement exists on tightening certain measures.

“It is an issue in which the coalition of parties that will be governing will indeed have opportunities to negotiate with the Party of the People, for example, to secure the missing votes needed to legislate on this matter,” he said.

He said he believes clear results will only be achieved if authorities manage to respond to migrants’ needs.

“The challenge will be to design strategies and measures that respond in a balanced way in terms of security, but also protect the fundamental rights of these people in vulnerable situations, linked to the political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela,” Duhalde said.

Feb. 4 (UPI) — The United States has sent a warship to Port Au Prince, Haiti, ahead of the Haitian government’s transition to new leadership on Saturday.

The USS Stockdale arrived off the coast of Haiti on Tuesday, U.S. Southern Command said on X. It joins two U.S. Coast Guard ships already in place: the USCGC Stone and USCGC Diligence.

“Their presence reflects the United States’ unwavering commitment to Haiti’s security, stability and brighter future,” U.S. Southern Command said in a post.

On Saturday, Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council’s mandate is scheduled to end, giving way to the installation of new elected leaders. However, it remains unclear who the country’s new leaders will be as a president has not been elected.

Discussions continue over what is next for Haiti after the council voted to oust Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aime last week. Three of the five council members were then sanctioned by the United States over attempting to remove Fils-Aime.

Antoine Rodon Bien-Aimé, former member of Haiti’s Lower House of Deputies, said in an interview that all members of the council must step down. The council has agreed with some members explicitly saying they will step down, though other members have continued to be involved in discussions about the government transition.

The council has been in place since 2024 to lead the country until a new president is elected. Haiti is set to hold elections in the summer but gang violence threatens the process.

“Their time is up. They did not give results,” Bien-Aimé said. “They did not respect their accord, what they signed. They have to leave. This is why we were present and will be present to continue to ask for their departure.”

Laura Farnsworth Dogu is not, at first glance, your typical Trump appointee.

A career diplomat with postings under the Obama and Biden administrations, she represents a branch of government President Trump has cut back and long vilified.

Yet her selection for Trump’s top envoy to Venezuela signals a rare strategic choice, leveraging her experience with authoritarian regimes at a moment when Washington is recalibrating its approach to Caracas after the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro.

“There are not very many cases in this administration where they have relied on a career diplomat,” says Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Venezuela in 2019. “This is actually an anomaly.”

Abrams suggests the appointment of Dogu — who met with the interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, in Caracas on Monday — could reflect a desire for a seasoned expert to manage day-to-day diplomacy as the administration embarks on one of its most complex foreign policy undertakings.

“What he really needs is a professional to oversee the embassy and do the traditional diplomatic things while all policy is made in Washington,” Abrams said, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Dogu, 62, arrived in Venezuela on Saturday to reopen the U.S. Embassy. She is recognized in Central America for her methodical, approachable style and deep understanding of Latin America’s political and cultural dynamics. However, her direct and outspoken approach has also led to controversy, with enraged officials in Honduras once wanting to declare her persona non grata.

Her new position as chargé d’affaires augments a career that includes senior roles in hostage recovery for the FBI and as ambassador to Nicaragua and Honduras during periods characterized by social and political volatility.

Before taking on her new position, she served as the foreign policy advisor to Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leader of the operation that targeted Maduro. Her office did not respond to a request for interview.

Her experience navigating authoritarian governments and fragmented opposition movements makes her a pragmatic choice for a volatile post-Maduro transition. In a Senate hearing on Jan. 28, Rubio stressed the post’s importance for restoring a limited U.S. mission to gather intelligence and engage with Venezuelan stakeholders.

Dogu will be tasked with navigating Venezuela’s fractured opposition, which includes leaders inside the country, exiles abroad and figures struggling for influence in a potential transition. Abrams, the veteran diplomat, said engaging opposition actors, such as Maria Corina Machado, is a core diplomatic responsibility, particularly in a country the United States does not recognize as having a legitimate government. At the same time, maintaining relations with the turbulent, divided government will be her responsibility as well.

Abrams also cautioned that Washington priorities will define Dogu’s mission, and those priorities might not always align neatly with democratic objectives.

“The question is how the administration defines the interests of the United States,” Abrams said. “Does it include a free and democratic Venezuela? I don’t think we really know the answer yet.”

A family ethos of public service

A Texas resident and the daughter of a career Navy officer, Dogu often traces her commitment to public service to her upbringing in a military family. That ethos shaped her diplomatic career and has been a defining thread across generations, with both of her sons also serving in the military.

She has received multiple State Department honors, speaks Spanish, Turkish and Arabic and served in Mexico, El Salvador, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco.

Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have been suspended since 2019. She takes over from John McNamara, who had served as chargé d’affaires since February 2025 and traveled to Venezuela in January to discuss the potential reopening of the embassy.

According to a statement, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil Pinto, indicated that the two governments will hold discussions to establish a “roadmap on matters of bilateral interest” and resolve disagreements through mutual respect and diplomatic dialogue.

Dogu is no stranger to Venezuelan issues. During a 2024 news conference, while serving as ambassador to Honduras, she publicly criticized the participation of sanctioned Venezuelan officials in Honduran government events.

“It’s surprising for me to see [Honduran] government officials sitting with members of a cartel based in Venezuela,” Dogu said at the time, referring to a meeting between the government of President Xiomara Castro and Venezuela’s defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López.

The United States has accused Padrino López of involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and there is a $15-million reward for information resulting in his arrest or conviction.

Years earlier, Dogu had offered a blunt assessment of Venezuela’s economic collapse. Speaking in 2019 at Indiana University’s Latin American Studies program, she described Venezuela as “a very wealthy country, [with] huge oil supplies, but they’ve managed to drive their economy into the ground,” the Indiana Gazette reported.

Crisis and confrontations

Nominated by President Obama to serve as ambassador to Nicaragua in 2015, she said at her confirmation hearing that Obama had “rightly maintained” that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another.” She added: “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”

Dogu left her Nicaragua post in October 2018 amid nationwide protests and a severe government crackdown that resulted in at least 355 deaths, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. At the time, Dogu said she learned from authorities that paramilitary groups had targeted her for death.

In 2019, she linked the unrest in Nicaragua to the Cold War, citing an “unfortunate negative synergy” among Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. “We never left the Cold War in Latin America,” she said.

Nicaraguan opposition figures, many now exiled, remember Dogu as an accessible diplomat. Former presidential candidate Juan Sebastián Chamorro called her a “methodical and approachable official” who upheld State Department policy and democratic principles.

Lesther Alemán, then a student leader who frequently interacted with Dogu during the 2018 protests, described her as publicly blunt but privately empathetic. Alemán emphasized Dogu’s ability to engage “all sides of the coin,” making her effective with both the “authoritarian governments and with the opposition.”

Alemán said Dogu initially had a good relationship with the Nicaraguan government, including a personal friendship with then-first lady and current co-President Rosario Murillo. However, that relationship soured after Dogu publicly supported opposition groups during the political crisis.

Her experience in Honduras proved more contentious. After Dogu made her statements regarding Venezuela, Rasel Tomé, vice president of the National Congress and a senior figure in the governing Liberty and Refoundation Party, urged lawmakers to declare her “persona non grata.”

Tomé justified this request by accusing her of making “interventionist statements” directed at the government.

Criticism continued after Dogu’s departure from Honduras in 2025. An opinion column published by the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras argued that her relationship with the country had been marked by distrust.

“Although Ambassador Laura Dogu makes an effort to say goodbye amicably,” the piece read, “we all know that the relationship between her and Honduras was not sincere because it was disrespectful; it was not trustworthy because it was interventionist.”

This week, the U.S. Embassy posted online an upbeat video of showing Dogu entering the mission, meeting with Venezuelans and outlining plans for what she calls a “friendly, stable, prosperous and democratic” Venezuela. “Our presence marks a new chapter,” she says, “and I’m ready to get to work.”

Mojica Loaisiga is a special correspondent writing for The Times under the auspices of the International Center for Journalists.

For months, United States President Donald Trump has called him a “sick man” and an “illegal drug leader”.

But on Tuesday, Trump welcomed his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, to the White House for their first face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC.

Both leaders hailed the meeting as productive, while acknowledging the lingering tensions that divide them.

At a news conference after their meeting, Petro waved away questions about his rocky history with Trump, whom he has publicly accused of human rights violations.

Instead, he called the interaction “ a meeting between two equals who have different ways of thinking”.

“He didn’t change his way of his thinking. Neither did I. But how do you do an agreement, a pact? It’s not as between twin brothers. It’s between opponents,” Petro said.

Separately, Trump told reporters from the Oval Office that he felt good about the meeting. “I thought it was terrific,” he said.

On the agenda for the two leaders were issues including the fight against transnational drug trafficking and security in Latin America.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.

A White House charm offensive

Over the past year, Trump has invited the media to participate in his meetings with foreign leaders, often holding news conferences with the visiting dignitaries in the Oval Office.

Not this time, however. The meeting between Trump and Petro lasted nearly two hours, all of it behind closed doors.

But the two leaders emerged with largely positive things to say about one another.

In a post on social media, Petro revealed that Trump had gifted him several items, including a commemorative photograph of their meeting accompanied by a signed note.

“Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia,” it read, followed by Trump’s signature.

In another post, Petro showed off a signed copy of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal. On its title page, Trump had scrawled another note to Petro: “You are great.”

“Can someone tell me what Trump said in this dedication?” Petro wrote jokingly in Spanish on social media. “I don’t understand much English.”

A turning point in a tense relationship?

Petro’s joke appeared to be a cheeky nod to his notoriously rocky relationship with Trump.

It was only six days into Trump’s second term, on January 26, 2025, that he and Petro began their feud, trading threats on social media over the fate of two US deportation flights.

Petro objected to the reported human rights violations facing the deportees. Trump, meanwhile, took Petro’s initial refusal to accept the flights as a threat to US “national security”. Petro ultimately backed down after Trump threatened steep sanctions on imported Colombian goods.

They continued to trade barbs in the months since. Petro, for instance, has condemned the deadly US attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, comparing the strikes with murder.

He has also criticised Trump for carrying out a US military offensive in Venezuela to abduct then-President Nicolas Maduro. That attack, Petro said, was tantamount to “kidnapping”.

Trump, meanwhile, stripped Petro of his US visa following the Colombian leader’s appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, where he criticised the US and briefly joined a pro-Palestinian protest.

The Trump administration also sanctioned Petro in October, blaming the left-wing leader for allowing “drug cartels to flourish”.

After removing Maduro from power on January 3, Trump offered a warning to Petro: he had better “watch his a**”. The statement was widely interpreted to be a threat of military action against Colombia.

But Trump and Petro appeared to have reached a turning point last month. On January 7, the two leaders held their first call together. Tuesday’s in-person meeting marked another first in their relationship.

Agreeing to disagree

Despite the easing tensions, the two leaders used their public statements after the meeting to reaffirm their differences.

Trump was the first to speak, holding a news conference in the Oval Office as he signed legislation to end a government shutdown.

The US president, a member of the right-wing Republican Party, used the appearance to reflect on the political tensions the two leaders had in the lead-up to the meeting.

“He and I weren’t exactly the best of friends, but I wasn’t insulted, because I’d never met him,” Trump told reporters.

He added that Tuesday’s meeting was nevertheless pleasant. “I didn’t know him at all, and we got along very well.”

Petro, meanwhile, held a longer news conference at the Colombian Embassy in Washington, DC, where he raised some points of divergence he had with Trump.

Among the topics he mentioned was Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which the US has supported, and sustainable energy initiatives designed to be carbon neutral. Trump, in the past, has called the so-called green energy programmes a “scam”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing leader, also reflected on his region’s history with colonialism and foreign intervention. He told reporters it was important that Latin America make decisions for itself, free from any outside “coercion”.

“ We don’t operate under blackmail,” he said at one point, in an apparent reference to Trump’s pressure campaigns.

Differing approach to combating drug trafficking

One of the primary points of contention, however, was Petro’s approach to combating drug trafficking.

Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine, responsible for 68 percent of the global supply.

The Trump administration has used the fight against global drug trafficking as a justification for carrying out lethal military strikes in international waters and in Venezuela, despite experts condemning the attacks as illegal under international law.

It has also stripped Colombia of its certification as an ally in its global counter-narcotics operations.

Trump’s White House has said it will consider reversing that decision if Petro takes “more aggressive action to eradicate coca and reduce cocaine production and trafficking”.

But Petro has rejected any attempt to label him as soft on drug trafficking, instead touting the historic drug busts his government has overseen.

He made this argument yet again after Tuesday’s meeting, claiming that no other Colombian administration had done as much as his to fight cocaine trafficking.

Rather than take a militarised approach to destroying crops of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, Petro argued that he has had more success with voluntary eradication programmes.

This push, he said, succeeded in “getting thousands of peasant farmers to uproot the plant themselves”.

“These are two different methods, two different ways of understanding how to fight drug trafficking,” Petro said. “One that is brutal and self-interested, and what it ends up doing is promoting mafia powers and drug traffickers, and another approach, which is intelligent, which is effective.”

Petro maintained it was more strategic to go after top drug-ring leaders than to punish impoverished rural farmers by forcibly ripping up their crops.

“I told President Trump, if you want an ally in fighting drug trafficking, it’s going after the top kingpins,” he said.

A Trumpian note

Tuesday’s meeting ultimately marked yet another high-profile reversal for Trump, who has a history of shifting his relationships with world leaders.

Last year, for instance, he lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a public Oval Office clash, only to warm to the wartime leader several months later.

But Colombia is quickly approaching a pivotal presidential election in May, which will see Petro’s left-wing coalition, the Historic Pact, seek to defend the presidency against an ascendant far right.

Petro himself cannot run for consecutive terms under Colombian law. But there is speculation that Tuesday’s detente with Trump may help Petro’s coalition avoid US condemnation ahead of the vote.

Colombia, after all, was until recently the largest recipient of US aid in South America, and it has long harboured close ties with the North American superpower. Straining those ties could therefore be seen as an election liability.

While Petro acknowledged his differences with Trump during his remarks, at times he expressed certain views that overlapped with the US president’s.

Like Trump has in the past, Petro used part of his speech on Tuesday to question the role of the UN in maintaining global security.

“ Did it not show incapacity? Isn’t a reform needed?” Petro asked, wondering aloud if there was “something superior to the United Nations that would bring humanity together better in a better way”.

But when it came to donning Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, Petro drew a line – or rather, a squiggle.

On social media, he shared an adjustment he made to the cap’s slogan. A jagged, Sharpie-inked “S” amended the phrase to include the entire Western Hemisphere: “Make Americas Great Again.”

The ‘test’ of a new country

This longing is shared by Angelica Angel, a 24-year-old student activist in exile.

She had grown up with tear gas and police beatings in Venezuela. After all, she had started protesting at age 15.

“They’ve pointed their guns at me, beaten me and almost arrested me. That’s when you realise that these people have no limits: They target the elderly, women and even young girls,” Angel said.

But the increasing political repression ultimately made her life in Merida, a college town in western Venezuela, untenable.

After 2024’s disputed presidential election, Angel decided to voice her outrage on social media.

Maduro had claimed a third term in office, despite evidence that he had lost in a landslide. The opposition coalition obtained copies of more than 80 percent of the country’s voter tallies, showing that its candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won the race.

Protests again broke out, and again, Maduro’s government responded with force.

Military and security officers detained nearly 2,000 people, including opposition leaders, journalists and human rights lawyers.

When Angel denounced the arbitrary detentions on TikTok, she began receiving daily threats.

By day, anonymous phone calls warned her of her impending arrest. By night, she heard pro-government gangs on motorcycles circling her home.

Fearing detention, she fled to Colombia in August 2024, leaving her family and friends behind.

But living outside Venezuela gave her a new perspective. She came to realise that the threats, persecution and violence she had learned to live with were not normal in a democratic country.

“When you leave, you realise that it isn’t normal to be afraid of the police, of unknown phone calls,” said Angel, her voice trembling. “I’m afraid to go back to my country and to be in that reality again.”

For exiled Venezuelans to return safely, Angel believes certain benchmarks must be met. The interim government must end arbitrary detention and allow opposition members, many of whom fled Venezuela, to return.

Only then, she explained, will Venezuela have moved past Maduro’s legacy.

“Exiles being able to return is a real test of whether a new country is taking shape,” she said.

WASHINGTON — Speaker Mike Johnson’s ability to carry out President Trump’s “play call” for funding the government will be put to the test on Tuesday as the House votes on a bill to end the partial shutdown.

Johnson will need near-unanimous support from his Republican conference to proceed to a final vote, but he and other GOP leaders sounded confident during a Tuesday morning press conference that they will succeed. Johnson can afford to lose only one Republican on party line votes with perfect attendance, but some lawmakers had threatened to tank the effort if their priorities are not included. Trump weighed in with a social media post, telling them, “There can be NO CHANGES at this time.”

“We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown that will hurt our Country so badly — One that will not benefit Republicans or Democrats. I hope everyone will vote, YES!,” Trump wrote on his social media site.

The measure would end the partial government shutdown that began Saturday, funding most of the federal government through Sept. 30 and the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks as lawmakers negotiate potential changes for the agency that enforces the nation’s immigration laws — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“The Republicans are going to do the responsible thing,” Johnson said.

Running Trump’s ‘play call’

The House had previously approved a final package of spending bills for this fiscal year ending Sept. 30, but the Senate broke up that package so that more negotiations could take place for the Homeland Security funding bill. Democrats are demanding changes in response to events in Minneapolis, where two American citizens were shot and killed by federal agents.

Johnson said on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday” it was Trump’s “play call to do it this way. He had already conceded he wants to turn down the volume, so to speak.” But GOP leaders sounded as if they still had work to do in convincing the rank-and-file to join them as House lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Monday after a week back in their congressional districts.

“We always work till the midnight hour to get the votes,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. “You never start the process with everybody on board. You work through it, and you could say that about every major bill we’ve passed.”

The funding package passed the Senate on Friday. Trump says he’ll sign it immediately if it passes the House. Some Democrats are expected to vote for the final bill but not for the initial procedural measure setting the terms for the House debate, making it the tougher test for Johnson and the White House.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has made clear that Democrats wouldn’t help Republicans out of their procedural jam, even though Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer helped negotiate the funding bill.

Jeffries, of New York, noted that the procedural vote covers a variety of issues that most Democrats oppose, including resolutions to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress over the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

“If they have some massive mandate,” Jeffries said of Republicans, “then go pass your rule, which includes toxic bills that we don’t support.”

Key differences from the last shutdown

The path to the current partial shutdown differs from the fall impasse, which affected more agencies and lasted a record 43 days.

Then, the debate was over extending temporary coronavirus pandemic-era subsidies for those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats were unsuccessful in getting those subsidies included as part of a package to end the shutdown.

Congress has made important progress since then, passing six of the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund federal agencies and programs. That includes important programs such as nutrition assistance and fully operating national parks and historic sites. They are funded through Sept. 30.

But the remaining unpassed bills represent roughly three-quarters of federal spending, including the Defense Department. Service members and federal workers could miss paychecks depending upon the length of the current funding lapse.

Voting bill becomes last-minute obstacle

Some House Republicans have demanded that the funding package include legislation requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before they are eligible to participate in elections. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., had said the legislation, known as the SAVE Act, must be included in the appropriations package.

But Luna appeared to drop her objections late Monday, writing on social media that she had spoken with Trump about a “pathway forward” for the voting bill in the Senate that would keep the government open. Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., met with Trump at the White House.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank focused on democracy and voting rights issues, said the voting bill’s passage would mean that Americans would need to produce a passport or birth certificate to register to vote and that at least 21 million voters lack ready access to those papers.

“If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown,” said Schumer, of New York. “Let’s be clear, the SAVE Act is not about securing our elections. It is about suppressing voters.”

Johnson, of Louisiana, has operated with a thin majority throughout his tenure as speaker. But with Saturday’s special election in Texas, the Republican majority stands at a threadbare 218-214, shrinking the GOP’s ability to withstand defections.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP video journalist Nathan Ellgren and writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the federal government should “nationalize” elections, repeating — without evidence — his long-running claim that U.S. elections are beset by widespread fraud.

Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting the GOP.

“The Republican ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said.

The proposal would clash with the Constitution’s long-standing framework that grants states primary authority over election administration, and underscored Trump’s continued efforts to upend voting rules ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

Trump, for example, lamented that Republicans have not been “tougher” on the issue, again asserting without evidence that he lost the 2020 election because undocumented immigrants voted illegally for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

In his remarks, the president suggested that “some interesting things” may come out of Georgia in the near future. Trump did not divulge more details, but was probably teasing what may come after the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga.

Days after FBI agents descended on the election center, the New York Times reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was with agents at the scene when she called Trump on her cellphone. Trump thanked them for their work, according to the report, an unusual interaction between the president and investigators tied to a politically sensitive inquiry.

In the days leading up to the Georgia search, Trump suggested in a speech during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that criminal charges were imminent in connection to what he called a “rigged” 2020 election.

Georgia has been central to Trump’s 2020 claims. That’s where Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2021, asking him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results. Raffensperger refused, affirming that a series of reviews confirmed that Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.

Since returning to office a year ago, Trump has continued to aggressively pushed changes to election rules.

He signed an executive order in March to require proof of U.S. citizenship on election forms, but months later a federal judge barred the Trump administration from doing so, saying the order violated the separation of powers.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in October.

In Congress, several Republican lawmakers have backed legislation to require people provide proof of citizenship before they register to vote.

Some conservatives are using the elections bill as bargaining chip amid negotiations over a spending package that would end a partial government shutdown that began early Saturday.

“ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS. This is common sense not rocket science,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X on Monday as negotiations were continuing.

All about the numbers

The Petro administration has also continued to target criminal networks that traffic in cocaine through arrests and the seizure of shipments.

In November, Petro announced the Colombian government had made its largest drug bust in a decade, with law enforcement nabbing nearly 14 tonnes of cocaine.

Gloria Miranda was appointed by Petro in 2024 to lead Colombia’s Directorate for the Substitution of Illicit Crops, the agency overseeing the voluntary eradication efforts.

She believes that the Petro administration’s efforts have been mischaracterised as ineffective.

“There’s been a narrative that Colombia isn’t doing anything in the fight against drug trafficking,” she told Al Jazeera.

“But we’ve seized 276,000 kilogrammes [608,500 pounds] of cocaine, destroyed 18,000 laboratories, arrested 164,000 people, and are replacing more than 30,000 hectares [about 74,100 acres] of illicit crops.”

But critics — including Trump — argue Petro’s measures have yet to translate into results. Coca cultivation and cocaine production remain stubbornly at record levels.

According to the latest United Nations figures, coca cultivation rose in Colombia by about 10 percent in 2023. Potential cocaine output also jumped 53 percent to about 2,600 tonnes.

Petro has questioned the accuracy of those numbers, though. Last week, ahead of Petro’s meeting with Trump, his government announced it would no longer use the United Nations figures, arguing that they rely on an “obscure statistical method”.

Michael Weintraub, the director of the Center for the Study of Security and Drugs (CESED) at the University of the Andes, told Al Jazeera that some of Petro’s pushback is political.

But he added that there is a genuine basis for questioning the UN’s methodology.

“The ‘potential cocaine production’ measure has a lot of baked-in assumptions that make it very difficult to trust,” Weintraub said.

It predicts coca production from selected plots, but yields vary by region and season. The UN itself has admitted there are limitations in its method.

Despite these concerns, coca cultivation in Colombia has trended upward for decades.

Analysts note one overriding factor: demand. Consumption in North America and Europe remains strong, and new markets have emerged in Asia, Africa and South America.

“Coca can only grow in limited places due to climate, soil and elevation,” Weintraub said. “So Colombia is likely to remain a major producer for the foreseeable future.”

SACRAMENTO — We relearned something from the killings of two law-abiding citizens by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis: There’s a limit to how many government lies the public will tolerate.

When government officials arrogantly persist in blatantly lying, the public just might turn angrily against the prevaricators.

Or maybe they’re not lying technically. They simply might not care whether they’re telling the truth, or what it is. Their only intent is to spew a tale that fits a political agenda. Regardless, the citizenry can stomach only so much.

Another thing we relearned is that when a government keeps acting against the public’s wishes, the public tends to rise up and smack its leader, altering the leader’s direction.

That’s the sign of a functional democracy when enough people get riled up and elbow their way into leading the government themselves.

In the process, they’re very likely to prod various other governments — state and local — into acting on their behalf.

We’ve been seeing this play out in the aftermath of the Minneapolis killings.

But, in fact, the public rebellion has been building during a yearlong nightmare of unjustified, inhumane, un-American violence by federal immigration agents. Their targets have been people with brown skin suspected of living in the country illegally. Never mind that many not only are documented, they’re U.S. citizens.

Such has been the slipshod and authoritarian way President Trump’s promised mass deportation program has been carried out.

Polls have consistently shown that voters strongly support the president’s goals of protecting the border and also deporting the “worst of the worst” undocumented criminals. But people have increasingly objected to his roughhouse methods, including masked federal agents slapping around and pepper-spraying legal protesters.

It’s not clear whether the two Minnesota citizens victimized by quick-draw federal agents were protesting. You can’t believe the Trump administration.

And that’s the danger in habitually lying: People can become so cynical that most disregard whatever they’re told by their so-called leaders. And that cripples what’s necessary for an ongoing healthy democracy: a cooperative relationship based on trust between citizens and those they’ve chosen to govern.

Some things we do know about the slain Minnesota citizens.

Alex Pretti, 37, was an intensive care nurse in a VA hospital. He was shooting video with his cellphone of agents and protesters when he was pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by several agents as his legally carried handgun was removed. Then he was shot in the back several times.

He was not a “domestic terrorist” and “assassin” who wanted to “massacre law enforcement,” as Trump sycophants immediately lied on TV before backing off, after most of America saw videos of the killing and the president got nervous.

Renee Good, 37, was a mother and poet who appeared merely to be trying to drive through protest chaos when an agent shot her three times through the windshield. She did not try to run down the agent, as the administration claimed.

Good was not “obviously a professional agitator” who “violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer,” as Trump wrote on social media.

Public outrage at the lying and the brutish immigration enforcement has pressured elected officials into action all around the country.

Sure, you can call it political grandstanding and, of course, much of it is. But good politics and sound democracy involve listening to the public and acting on its desires.

In Sacramento, the state Senate held an emotional two-hour debate over a bill aimed at permitting people to sue federal law enforcement when their constitutional rights are violated. Rights such as the ability to peacefully protest and to be protected against excessive force. Lawsuits already are allowed against state and local officers. But federal agents are practically untouchable.

Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) passed on a 30-10 party-line vote — Democrats for and Republicans against. The measure moved to the Assembly.

The vote was yet another sorry sign of today’s unhealthy political polarization. Not one Republican could break out of the Trump web and vote to hold illegally operating federal agents accountable in civil courts. But neither could one Democrat detect enough fault in the bill to vote against it.

Some law enforcement groups oppose the legislation because they fear it would spur additional suing against local cops. Look for an amendment in the Assembly.

The heated Senate debate reflected Democratic lawmakers’ frustration with Trump — and many of their constituents’ fears.

“The level of anxiety and anger is higher than I’ve ever seen in my 13 years in the Legislature,” Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) told me.

“People are coming into our offices fearful for relatives or friends who are hiding out, afraid to go to doctors’ appointments and their kids are staying away from schools.”

During the debate, several senators mentioned two young protesters who were each permanently blinded in one eye by rubber bullets shot by Homeland Security officers in Santa Ana. Lawmakers also railed against “kidnappings” off the street of people simply because of their skin colors, accents and dress.

“California is not going to let these thugs get away with it,” Wiener vowed.

“There’s a lot of hyperbole on this floor,” Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) asserted. He called for repeal of California’s “sanctuary” laws that greatly restrict cooperation by state and local officers with federal immigration agents.

Easing those laws is probably a good idea. But more important, we’ve got to restrain undisciplined federal agents from shooting unarmed people in the back.

Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), who revealed that she has been packing a firearm for 30 years, said that Pretti should never have brought his gun to a protest even if it was legal — which it isn’t in California.

And she’s right. But he never brandished the weapon and shouldn’t have paid with his life.

Neither should Pretti have been immediately attacked as a bad guy by lying federal officials. They’re now paying a political price.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Planned Parenthood, reproductive healthcare could receive $90 million in new state funding
The TK: Healthcare experts warn “people will die” unless state steps up amid federal cuts
The L.A. Times Special: Meet the un-Gavin. Kentucky’s governor sees a different way to the White House

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

ICE agents in California detained several residents, including a US citizen, amid a surge in immigration raids under the Trump administration. Protests under the ‘ICE Out of Everywhere’ campaign erupted across southern California, where demonstrators faced arrests and injuries.

Iran has announced that it now considers all European Union militaries to be ‘terrorist groups’. This follows the EU’s terror designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) over a deadly crackdown on protesters.

Hundreds of protesters in Italy have denounced plans to bring ICE agents from the US to the Winter Olympics in Milan that begin on Friday. Italy’s interior ministry says ICE will only operate at US diplomatic offices and won’t be patrolling on the ground.

US President Donald Trump says Iran is ‘seriously talking’ with the US and hopes that talks with Tehran will lead to a nuclear deal. Trump also reiterated that he’s sending ‘powerful ships’ to the Gulf.

BUENO AIRES, Jan. 30 (UPI) — The Argentine government authorized private companies to import and sell liquefied natural gas — a move that removes the state from those operations and accelerates the privatization of Enarsa, the country’s public energy company.

The decision was formalized through a decree signed by President Javier Milei and published in the Official Gazette this week. The decree also extends through December 2027 a state of emergency in natural gas transportation and distribution, underscoring continued strain on the system.

Enarsa has historically handled production, transportation and marketing of oil, natural gas and electricity in Argentina. With the new policy, the government begins dismantling that role and shifting functions long overseen by the state to the private sector.

The decision addresses a long-standing structural problem. According to the Secretariat of Energy, Argentina lacks sufficient pipeline capacity to move all gas from producing areas to major urban centers.

That limitation becomes acute in winter. As heating demand rises, domestic supply falls short and the country must import liquefied natural gas by ship.

Until now, the state managed that process. Enarsa bought LNG on the international market at high prices and sold it domestically at well below cost, with the gap covered by taxpayer-funded subsidies.

“This change is part of the decision to move forward with privatizing Enarsa’s assets and activities and to remove the state from its role as an entrepreneur and intermediary in the energy market,” the Energy Secretariat said.

Officials said the state should focus on regulating the market, ensuring clear rules, promoting competition and guaranteeing supply rather than directly buying and selling gas.

Under the new framework, Enarsa will stop importing and marketing LNG, and private operators will take over under a competitive scheme.

The system eliminates the implicit subsidy that existed until now and transfers the entire operation to the private sector, subject to competition rules and state oversight.

To implement the plan, the government will sell access to the Escobar terminal on the outskirts of Buenos Aires. It is the country’s only operational facility where imported LNG is regasified for distribution.

The Secretariat of Energy will set the tender conditions. If no bids are received or the process fails, Enarsa may intervene temporarily to avoid supply disruptions.

Because only one terminal is operating, the government also said it will set a maximum gas price for the upcoming winter to prevent abuse of a dominant position.

Juan José Carbajales, a former undersecretary of hydrocarbons, told UPI that privatization basically means giving a private company the job of buying LNG shipments and then selling that gas inside Argentina.

He said the operation is purely commercial and does not include physical management of the Escobar terminal.

“The scheme will be based on requests the awardee receives from power generators and gas distributors, and sales will be capped by a maximum price set by the Energy Secretariat at least for the next two periods,” Carbajales said.

He said the decision reflects the government’s view that the function failed under state management — a stance rooted in broader distrust of public-sector economic activity, in this case Enarsa.

He said the position is ideological and supported by the so-called Bases Law, which prioritizes private initiative in the economy.

The former official added that large budget allocations to Enarsa did not prove a system failure, but rather a political decision by successive administrations to channel residential gas subsidies by buying fuel at international prices and selling it domestically at far lower levels.

He said the measure also aligns with reforms in the electricity market aimed at gradually returning to a system of free contracting between supply and demand.

Carbajales warned gas prices in Argentina could rise if international conditions push LNG costs higher.

“Although the government will cap that value for two years, uncertainty will remain about what happens once the ceiling is lifted,” he said.

The authorization for private companies to import natural gas is part of a broader privatization agenda promoted by Milei. Since taking office in December 2023, his administration has moved to sell or prepare for sale several state-owned companies.

Israel says it will reopen the Rafah crossing on Sunday after nearly two years — but only for restricted, tightly controlled movement of people. Humanitarian aid remains barred. Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud reports from Rafah as Israel retains full security control.

The United States Justice Department has released a massive new tranche of investigative files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

At a news conference on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the department was releasing more than 3 million pages of documents, as well as more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

He said the release means the department has met a legal requirement passed by Congress last year.

“Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act,” Blanche said.

But the administration of President Donald Trump has faced scrutiny over the pacing of the files’ release and redactions within the published documents.

Trump himself has been confronted with questions about his past relationship with Epstein, who cultivated a roster of influential contacts.

On Friday, Blanche dismissed rumours that the Justice Department had sought to protect powerful individuals, including Trump.

While Trump has acknowledged a years-long friendship with with the financier, he has denied any knowledge of the underage sex-trafficking ring that prosecutors say Epstein led.

“There’s this built-in assumption that somehow there’s this hidden tranche of information ‌of men that we know about, that we’re covering up, or that we’re not we’re choosing not to prosecute,” Blanche said. “That is not the case.”

The Justice Department had initially missed a December 19 deadline set by Congress to release all the files.

The publication is the result of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was published in November with bipartisan support to force the release of all federal documents pertaining to Epstein.

In response to the law, the Justice Department said it had tasked hundreds of lawyers with reviewing the records to determine what needs to be blacked out to protect the identities of sexual abuse victims.

Blanche said the department withheld any materials that could jeopardise ongoing investigations or expose potential victims.

All women in the Epstein files other than Ghislaine Maxwell — an ex-girlfriend who was also convicted of child sex trafficking — have been obscured from the videos and images being released on Friday, according to Blanche.

In the past, some of Epstein’s victims have slammed the department’s redactions and withholdings as excessive, with critics pointing out that previously published documents were among the files blacked out.

In December, the Justice Department released an initial batch of Epstein-related documents, though it fell short of the full publication mandated by November’s law.

That release, however, included previously unreleased flight logs showing that Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet in the 1990s. Those trips appeared to happen before Trump has said the pair had a falling out.

The recent releases also contain images showing prominent individuals like tech billionaire Bill Gates, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, director Woody Allen and former US President Bill Clinton socialising with Epstein, sometimes on his private island.

To date, none of the individuals depicted in the releases have been charged with any crimes, outside of Maxwell.

Following her conviction in 2021, she is serving a 20-year prison sentence, though she has continued to deny any wrongdoing.

Epstein died from of apparent suicide in a New York jail cell in August 2019, a month after he was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges.

He had previously been convicted of state sex-offender charges in Florida in 2008 as part of a plea deal that was widely slammed for its leniency. He spent a total of 13 months in custody.

One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, also filed lawsuits against him, accusing him of arranging sexual encounters with politicians, business titans, academics and other influential figures while she was underage.

All of the men identified by Giuffre, who died in April 2025 in Australia, have denied the allegations.

Among the people she accused was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, who denied the clams but settled a lawsuit filed by Giuffre for an undisclosed sum.

In October, his brother, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his royal titles as a result of the controversy.

Press freedom groups decry arrest of former CNN anchor as lawyer pledges to fight charges ‘vigorously’.

Journalist Don Lemon has been arrested in connection with his coverage of a protest against United States President Donald Trump’s deadly immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota.

Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said on Friday that the journalist had been arrested in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy Awards.

It was not immediately clear what charges Lemon was facing. In recent weeks, however, the Department of Justice indicated it would target Lemon for his attendance at a January 18 protest, in which demonstrators disrupted a church service in the city of St Paul, Minnesota.

“Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Lowell said in a statement.

He pointed to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the freedom of the press.

“The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable,” Lowell said. “Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court”.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the arrest on Friday, saying Lemon had been taken into custody with three others in connection with what she described as the “coordinated attack on Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota”.

Lemon was part of a series of arrests that morning, all related to the church demonstration. They included independent journalist Georgia Fort, as well as activists Jamael Lydell Lundy and Trahern Jeen Crews.

Federal authorities had previously arrested Minneapolis civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong and two others in connection with the protest.

Press freedom groups swiftly condemned the action, which they called a major escalation in the administration’s attacks on journalists.

“The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them,” Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

The National Press Club also denounced the arrests in a statement. “Arresting or detaining journalists for covering protests, public events, or government actions represents a grave threat to press freedom and risks chilling reporting nationwide,” it wrote.

Lemon had previously been an anchor for the CNN news network, but he was fired in 2023. He has since worked as an independent journalist, with a prominent presence on YouTube.

‘I’m here as a journalist’

During his online report from the church protest, Lemon repeatedly identified himself as a reporter as he interviewed both demonstrators and church attendees.

“I’m not here as an activist. I’m here as a journalist,” he told those present.

Protesters had targeted the church, which belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention, due to its pastor, David Easterwood, who also holds a role as the head of a field office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Critics have questioned why the Justice Department swiftly opened a probe into the church protest, while it declined to open a civil rights investigation into an ICE agent’s killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on January 7.

The department has not yet said if it will open an investigation into the January 24 killing of US citizen Alex Pretti by border patrol agents in Minneapolis.

“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell said in his statement.

Friday’s arrest comes after a federal judge in Minnesota took the rare move last week of refusing to sign an arrest warrant for Lemon. Justice Department officials nevertheless promised to continue pursuing charges.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that he expects the United States to respect the country’s sovereignty after reports that Alberta separatists have met several times with officials of the Donald Trump administration.

The Financial Times reported that US State Department officials held meetings with the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), a group calling for a referendum on whether the energy-rich western province should leave Canada.

Speaking in Ottawa on Thursday, Carney said he has been clear with US President Donald Trump on the issue.

“I expect the US administration to respect Canadian sovereignty,” he said, adding that after raising the issue, he wanted the two sides to focus on areas where they can work together.

Carney is himself an Albertan, raised in Edmonton, the provincial capital. The province has had an independence movement for decades.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada the “51st state” of the American Union.

Here is what we know:

Leaders of the APP have reportedly met with US State Department officials in Washington at least three times since last April. Trump entered office for a second time in January.

These meetings have prompted concern in Ottawa regarding potential US interference in Canadian domestic politics.

This follows comments by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week, who described Alberta as “a natural partner for the US” and praised the province’s resource wealth and “independent” character during an interview with the right-wing broadcaster Real America’s Voice.

“Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they [the Canadian government] won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific,” he said. “I think we should let them come down into the US,” Bessent said during an interview with the right-wing broadcaster.

“There’s a rumour they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”

Asked if he knew something about the separation effort, Bessent said, “People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what the US has got.”

After Bessent’s comments, Jeffrey Rath, a leader of the APP, said that the group was seeking another meeting with US officials next month, where they are expected to ask about a possible $500bn credit line to support Alberta if a future independence referendum – which has not yet been called – were to be held.

The developments come at a sensitive moment in US-Canada relations, with trade tensions still simmering and after a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos where Carney warned that Washington was contributing to a “rupture” in the global order.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada part of the American Union. His expansionist ambitions have been further underscored by his recent push to acquire Greenland from Denmark, which, like Canada, is a NATO ally. At the start of the year, the US military also abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and has since attempted to take control of the South American nation’s massive oil industry.

How have Canadian leaders reacted to the reports?

Speaking on Thursday, British Columbia Premier David Eby described the reported behind-the-scenes meetings as “treason”.

“To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there’s an old-fashioned word for that – and that word is treason,” Eby told reporters.

“It is completely inappropriate to seek to weaken Canada, to go and ask for assistance, to break up this country from a foreign power and – with respect – a president who has not been particularly respectful of Canada’s sovereignty.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford appealed for Canadian unity on Thursday morning.

“You know, we have a referendum going on out in Alberta. The separatists in Quebec say they’re gonna call a referendum if they get elected. Like, folks, we need to stick together. It’s Team Canada. It’s nothing else,” he said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, however, said she won’t demonise the Albertans who are open to separation because of “legitimate grievances” with Ottawa and said she did not want to “demonise or marginalise a million of my fellow citizens”.

Smith has long been pro-Trump and visited the US president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in January 2025, at a time when most other Canadian leaders were joining hands to criticise his demand that the country become a part of the United States.

What do we know about a potential referendum in Alberta?

Anger towards Ottawa has been building in Alberta for decades, rooted largely in disputes over how the federal government manages the province’s vast oil and gas resources.

Many Albertans feel federal policies – particularly environmental regulations, carbon pricing and pipeline approvals – limit Alberta’s ability to develop and export its energy.

As a landlocked province, Alberta depends on pipelines and cooperation with other provinces to access global markets, making those federal decisions especially contentious.

Many Albertans believe the province generates significant wealth while having limited influence over national decision-making. In 2024-25, for instance, it contributed 15 percent of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), despite being home to only 12 percent of the population.

Alberta consistently produces more than 80 percent of Canada’s oil and 60 percent of the country’s natural gas.

Yet, many Albertans say that the federal government does not give the province its fair share from taxes collected. Canada has a system of equalisation payments, under which the federal government pays poorer provinces extra funds to ensure that they can maintain social services. While Quebec and Manitoba receive the highest payments, Alberta – as well as British Columbia and Saskatchewan – at the moment receive no equalisation payments.

Carney recently signed an agreement with Alberta, opening the door for an oil pipeline to the Pacific, though it is opposed by Eby and faces significant hurdles.

Recent Ipsos polling suggests that about three in 10 Albertans would support starting the process of leaving Canada.

But the survey also found that roughly one in five of those supporters viewed a vote to leave as largely symbolic – a way to signal political dissatisfaction rather than a firm desire for independence.

A referendum on Alberta independence could happen later this year if a group of residents can collect the nearly 178,000 signatures required to force a vote on the issue. But even if the referendum passes, Alberta would not be immediately independent.

Under the Clarity Act, the federal government would first have to determine whether the referendum question was clear and whether the result represented a clear majority. Only then would negotiations begin, covering issues such as the division of assets and debt, borders and Indigenous rights.

What is the Alberta Prosperity Project and what does it want?

The APP is a pro-independence group that is campaigning for a referendum on Alberta leaving Canada.

It argues that the province would be better off controlling its own resources, taxes and policies, and has been working to gather signatures under Alberta’s citizen-initiative rules to trigger a vote.

While it describes itself as an educational, non-partisan project, the group has drawn controversy over its claims about the economic viability of an independent Alberta.

On its website, the APP says, “Alberta sovereignty, in the context of its relationship with Canada, refers to the aspiration for Alberta to gain greater autonomy and control over provincial areas of responsibility.”

“However, a combination of economic, political, cultural and human rights factors … has resulted in many Albertans defining ‘Alberta sovereignty’ to mean Alberta becoming an independent country and taking control of all matters that fall within the jurisdiction of an independent nation,” it adds.

What else has Washington said?

White House and State Department officials told the FT that administration officials regularly meet with civil society groups and that no support or commitments were conveyed.

A  report published by Canada’s public broadcaster CBC earlier this year quoted US national security analyst Brandon Weichert as saying that Trump’s talk of Canada becoming the “51st state” was, in reality, aimed at Alberta.

Appearing on a show hosted by former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, Weichert suggested that a vote for independence in Alberta would prompt the US to recognise the province and guide it towards becoming a US state.

Has the Trump administration tried this elsewhere?

Yes, in Greenland.

As with Canada, Trump has repeatedly called for Greenland to be incorporated into the US. His threats to annex Greenland have prompted strong opposition from the government of the Arctic island, Denmark — which governs Greenland — and Europe.

But as with Alberta, Trump’s administration has also attempted to test separatist sentiment. In August 2025, the Danish government summoned the top US diplomat in Copenhagen after Denmark’s national broadcaster reported that three Trump allies had begun pulling together a list of Greenlanders supportive of the US president’s efforts to get it to join the United States.

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez has signed into law a reform bill that will pave the way for increased privatisation in the South American country’s nationalised oil sector, fulfilling a key demand from her United States counterpart, Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Rodriguez held a signing ceremony with a group of state oil workers. She hailed the reform as a positive step for Venezuela’s economy.

“We’re talking about the future. We are talking about the country that we are going to give to our children,” Rodriguez said.

The ceremony came within hours of the National Assembly – dominated by members of Rodriguez’s United Socialist Party – passing the reform.

“Only good things will come after the suffering,” said Jorge Rodriguez, the assembly’s head and brother of the interim president.

Since the US military’s abduction of Venezuela’s former leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3, the Trump administration has sought to pressure President Rodriguez to open the country’s oil sector to outside investment.

Trump has even warned that Rodriguez could “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro”, should she fail to comply with his demands.

Thursday’s legislation will give private firms control over the sale and production of Venezuelan oil.

It would also require legal disputes to be resolved outside of Venezuelan courts, a change long sought by foreign companies, who argue that the judicial system in the country is dominated by the ruling socialist party.

The bill would also cap royalties collected by the government at 30 percent.

While Rodriguez signed the reform law, the Trump administration simultaneously announced it would loosen some sanctions restricting the sale of Venezuelan oil.

The Department of the Treasury said it would allow limited transactions by the country’s government and the state oil company PDVSA that were “necessary to the lifting, exportation, reexportation, sale, resale, supply, storage, marketing, purchase, delivery, or transportation of Venezuelan-origin oil, including the refining of such oil, by an established US entity”.

Previously, all of Venezuela’s oil sector was subject to sweeping US sanctions imposed in 2019, under Trump’s first term as president.

Thursday’s suite of changes is designed to make Venezuela’s oil market more appealing to outside petroleum firms, many of whom remain wary of investing in the country.

Under Maduro, Venezuela experienced waves of political repression and economic instability, and much of his government remains intact, though Maduro himself is currently awaiting trial in a New York prison.

His abduction resulted in dozens of deaths, and critics have accused the US of violating Venezuelan sovereignty.

Venezuela nationalised its oil sector in the 1970s, and in 2007, Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, pushed the government to increase its control and expropriate foreign-held assets.

Following Maduro’s abduction, Trump administration officials have said that the US will decide to whom and under what conditions Venezuelan oil is sold, with proceeds deposited into a US-controlled bank account.

Concerns about the legality of such measures or the sovereignty of Venezuela have been waved aside by Trump and his allies, who previously asserted that Venezuelan oil should “belong” to the US.