removal

PHILADELPHIA — Outraged critics accused President Trump of “whitewashing history” on Friday after the National Park Service removed an exhibit on slavery at Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park in response to his executive order “restoring truth and sanity to American history” at the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks.

Empty bolt holes and shadows are all that remains on the brick walls where explanatory panels were displayed at the President’s House Site, where George and Martha Washington lived with the people they owned as property when Philadelphia was the nation’s capital. One woman cried silently at their absence. Someone left a bouquet of flowers. A hand-lettered sign said “Slavery was real.”

Workers on Thursday removed the exhibit, which included biographical details about the nine people enslaved by the Washingtons at the presidential mansion. Just their names — Austin, Paris, Hercules, Christopher Sheels, Richmond, Giles, Oney Judge, Moll and Joe — remain engraved into a cement wall.

Seeking to stop the display’s permanent removal, the city of Philadelphia on Thursday sued Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron.

“Let me affirm, for the residents of the city of Philadelphia, that there is a cooperative agreement between the city and the federal government that dates back to 2006,” Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker said during a press conference Friday. “That agreement requires parties to meet and confer if there are to be any changes made to an exhibit.”

Slavery is central to the site’s story, Philadelphia’s lawsuit argues: The people enslaved at the mansion included Oney Judge, who famously ran away and remained free despite Washington’s attempts to return her to bondage.

The panels came down because Trump’s order requires federal agencies to review interpretive materials to “ensure accuracy, honesty, and alignment with shared national values,” an Interior Department statement said. It called the city’s lawsuit frivolous, aimed at “demeaning our brave Founding Fathers who set the brilliant road map for the greatest country in the world.”

The department did not answer questions about what will replace the exhibits that were removed.

Critics condemned the removals as confirmation the Trump administration seeks to erase unflattering aspects of American history.

“Their shameful desecration of this exhibit raises broader, disturbing questions about this administration’s continued abuse of power and commitment to whitewashing history,” said Rep. Dwight Evans, a Democrat whose district includes the city.

“America’s history, as painful as some chapters are, isn’t disparaged by telling the whole truth. Trying to whitewash American history, however, disparages who we are. This is yet another egregious example of revisionist history that will be reviled for generations,” said Philadelphia state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta.

Taking pride in American independence shouldn’t mean hiding its mistakes, said Ed Stierli, a regional director for the National Parks Conservation Assn. Historic sites should help Americans grapple with our difficult truths and historical contradictions, he said. Removing the exhibit insults the memory of the enslaved people who lived there, reverses years of collaborative work and “sets a dangerous precedent of prioritizing nostalgia over the truth,” Stierli said.

“It shows that the United States is still unwilling to reckon with the horrors of its past and would rather prefer to sanitize the history that it has and try to present a convenient lie,” said Timothy Welbeck, director of the Center for Anti-Racism at Temple University.

As the Trump administration prepares to celebrate the country’s 250th anniversary, it has focused on a more positive telling of the American story and put pressure on federal institutions including the Smithsonian to tell a version of history less focused on race.

The executive order Trump signed in March accused the Biden administration of advancing a “corrosive ideology.”

“At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — where our Nation declared that all men are created equal — the prior administration sponsored training by an organization that advocates dismantling ‘Western foundations’ and ‘interrogating institutional racism’ and pressured National Historical Park rangers that their racial identity should dictate how they convey history to visiting Americans because America is purportedly racist,” the order states.

Vejpongsa and Brewer write for the Associated Press. Brewer reported from Norman, Okla. AP writer Dorany Pineda contributed to this report from Los Angeles.

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by the Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.

The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with 4th Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.

The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.

For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown.

The memo itself has not been widely shared within the agency, according to a whistleblower complaint, but its contents have been used to train new ICE officers who are being deployed into cities and towns to implement the president’s immigration crackdown. New ICE hires and those still in training are being told to follow the memo’s guidance instead of written training materials that actually contradict the memo, according to the whistleblower disclosure.

It is unclear how broadly the directive has been applied in immigration enforcement operations. The Associated Press witnessed ICE officers ramming through the front door of the home of a Liberian man, Garrison Gibson, with a deportation order from 2023 in Minneapolis on Jan. 11, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn.

Documents reviewed by the AP revealed that the agents only had an administrative warrant — meaning there was no judge who authorized the raid on private property.

The change is almost certain to meet legal challenges and stiff criticism from advocacy groups and immigrant-friendly state and local governments that have spent years successfully urging people not to open their doors unless ICE shows them a warrant signed by a judge.

The Associated Press obtained the memo and whistleblower complaint from an official in Congress, who shared it on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive documents. The AP verified the authenticity of the accounts in the complaint.

The memo, signed by the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, and dated May 12, 2025, says: “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.”

The memo does not detail how that determination was made nor what its legal repercussions might be.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement to the AP that everyone the department serves with an administrative warrant has already had “full due process and a final order of removal.”

She said the officers issuing those warrants have also found probable cause for the person’s arrest. She said the Supreme Court and Congress have “recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement,” without elaborating. McLaughlin did not respond to questions about whether ICE officers entered a person’s home since the memo was issued, relying solely on an administrative warrant and if so, how often.

Recent arrests shine a light on tactics

Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal organization that assists workers exposing wrongdoings, said in the whistleblower complaint obtained by the Associated Press that it represents two anonymous U.S. government officials “disclosing a secretive — and seemingly unconstitutional — policy directive.”

A wave of recent high-profile arrests, many unfolding at private homes and businesses and captured on video, has placed a spotlight on immigration arrest tactics, including officers’ use of proper warrants.

Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants, internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific individual but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other non-public spaces without consent. Only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.

All law enforcement operations — including those conducted by ICE and Customs and Border Protection — are governed by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which protects all people in the country from unreasonable searches and seizures.

People can legally refuse federal immigration agents entry into private property if the agents only have an administrative warrant, with some limited exceptions.

Memo shown to ‘select’ officials

The memo says ICE officers can forcibly enter homes and arrest immigrants using just a signed administrative warrant known as an I-205 if they have a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals or a district judge or magistrate judge.

The memo says officers must first knock on the door and share who they are and why they’re at the residence. They’re limited in the hours they can go into the home — after 6 a.m. and before 10 p.m. The people inside must be given a “reasonable chance to act lawfully.” But if that doesn’t work, the memo says, they can use force to go in.

“Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence, following proper notification of the officer or agent’s authority and intent to enter,” the memo reads.

The memo is addressed to all ICE personnel. But it has been shown only to “select DHS officials” who then shared it with some employees who were told to read it and return it, Whistleblower Aid wrote in the disclosure.

One of the two whistleblowers was allowed to view the memo only in the presence of a supervisor and then had to give it back. That person was not allowed to take notes. A whistleblower was able to access the document and lawfully disclose it to Congress, Whistleblower Aid said.

Although the memo was issued in May, David Kligerman, senior vice president and special counsel at Whistleblower Aid, said it took time for its clients to find a “safe and legal path to disclose it to lawmakers and the American people.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Wednesday to President Trump’s claim that he has the power, acting alone, to fire Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook for a past mistake on a mortgage application.

Most of the justices said they were not convinced that what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. described as Cook’s “inadvertent mistake” was grounds for removing her from the central bank board.

They also questioned Trump’s failure to give her a hearing.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told Trump’s lawyer he had overplayed his hand.

“Your position is that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available and a very low bar for cause that the president alone determines,” he told Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer. “That would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”

“Why are you afraid of a hearing?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If you have the evidence … give her a chance to defend herself. That just wouldn’t be that big of a deal.”

Trump has sought to take control of the independent bank board because it has not lowered interest rates as far and as fast as he prefers.

He has clashed with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome H. Powell and threatened to fire him. More recently, Trump’s prosecutors said they were investigating Powell for possible criminal false statements in a congressional hearing.

In August, Trump posted on social media that he had “cause” to fire Cook after he was told she may have committed mortgage fraud.

In 2021, the year before President Biden appointed her, she bought homes in Michigan and Georgia and said each would be her “principal residence.”

In response to the allegation, Cook’s attorney said she had told the mortgage lender that the Georgia property was a “vacation home,” not her primary residence.

Cook sued to retain her seat. A federal judge blocked her removal on the grounds that her alleged wrongdoing came before her appointment. The D.C. Circuit Court agreed in a 2-1 decision.

In September, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court and said this was “yet another case of improper judicial interference with the president’s removal authority.” They said the court should set aside the lower court ruling and uphold Cook’s firing.

For much of the past year, the court’s conservatives have granted appeals from Trump’s lawyers and allowed the president to fire agency officials who had fixed terms in office.

Last month, they were ready to overturn a 90-year-old precedent and to rule that Trump has the “executive power” to remove and replace these officials.

But Roberts and the conservatives were also ready to make an exception for the Federal Reserve Board. They suggested the central bank is not an executive agency subject to the president’s direct control.

In October, they opted to keep Cook’s firing on hold, and they scheduled arguments on how to proceed.

But Roberts agreed with Kavanaugh that Trump’s lawyers had gone too far.

“You began by talking about deceit,” he told Sauer. “Does what you said apply in the case of an inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record? Under your position, it doesn’t make a difference, right?”

Sauer had argued the courts could not review Trump’s decision to fire a Federal Reserve Board governor.

Kavanaugh, a former White House lawyer, said Trump’s position would destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve, which had been supported by both parties.

“What goes around comes around,” he said. “All of the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president. … Then we’re really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here?”

While the justices were skeptical of Trump’s arguments on Wednesday, it was not clear how they will rule.

They could rule that Trump has to give Cook a hearing and an opportunity to defend herself. Or they could rule more directly and say that an alleged misstatement on a past mortgage application did not rise to the level of “cause” for firing a Federal Reserve Board governor.

Representing Cook, Washington attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, said the court should preserve the Federal Reserve as a unique and independent agency.

“There is an unbroken history going back to its founding in 1913 in which no president, from Woodrow Wilson to Joseph Biden, has ever even tried to remove a governor for cause, despite the ever-present temptation for lower rates and easier money,” he said.

He argued that the independence of the Federal Reserve is more important than resolving the allegations against Cook.

“It’s less important that the president have full faith in every single governor, and it’s more important that the markets and the public have faith in the independence of the Fed from the president and from Congress,” he said.

A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower-court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.

“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”

The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.

It was not clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.

Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.

In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil said the appeals ruling was “deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve.”

He added: “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”

Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s lawyers, said the ruling was “contrary to rulings of other federal courts.” He noted the panel’s finding concerned a “hypertechnical jurisdictional matter,” rather than the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.

“Our legal options are by no means concluded, and we will fight with every available avenue,” he added, saying Khalil would remain free pending the full resolution of all appeals, which could take months or longer.

The ACLU said the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which won’t happen while he can still immediately appeal.

Khalil has multiple options to appeal

Khalil’s lawyers can request the active judges on the 3rd Circuit hear an appeal, or they can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested on March 8, 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his firstborn.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They have also accused Khalil, 30, of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

The government has justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests.

In June, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

Dissenting judge says Khalil has right to fight detention

Judge Arianna Freeman dissented Thursday, writing that her colleagues were holding Khalil to the wrong legal standard. Khalil, she wrote, is raising “now-or-never claims” that can be handled at the district court level. He does not have a final order of removal, which would permit a challenge in an appellate court, she wrote.

Both judges who ruled against Khalil, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, were Republican appointees. President George W. Bush appointed Hardiman to the 3rd Circuit, while Trump appointed Bibas. President Biden, a Democrat, appointed Freeman.

The majority opinion noted Freeman worried the ruling would leave Khalil with no remedy for unconstitutional immigration detention, even if he later can appeal.

“But our legal system routinely forces petitioners — even those with meritorious claims — to wait to raise their arguments,” the judges wrote. “To be sure, the immigration judge’s order of removal is not yet final; the Board has not affirmed her ruling and has held the parties’ briefing deadlines in abeyance pending this opinion. But if the Board ultimately affirms, Khalil can get meaningful review.”

The decision comes as an appeals board in the immigration court system weighs a previous order that found Khalil could be deported. His attorneys have argued that the federal order should take precedence.

That judge has suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family.

His attorneys have said he faces mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

Offenhartz and Sisak write for the Associated Press. AP writer Larry Neumeister contributed to this report.

Jan. 13 (UPI) — Adelaide Writers’ Week, a premier literary event in Australia, was canceled after most of the writers dropped out in protest of the festival’s decision to disinvite a Palestinian-Australian author.

Last week, the Adelaide Festival board announced that Randa Abdel-Fattah, a critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, was disinvited “given her past statements.”

“Whilst we do not suggest in any way that Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah’s or her writings have any connection with the tragedy at Bondi, given her past statements we have formed the view that it would not be culturally sensitive to continue to program her at this unprecedented time so soon after Bondi,” the Jan. 8 statement said.

On Dec. 14, two men shot and killed 15 people at Bondi Beach in Sydney during a Hanukkah celebration. One of the shooters was killed on the scene. The surviving shooter was arrested and charged. Since then, Australia has been cracking down on anti-Semitism and hate speech.

Following Abdel-Fattah’s ousting, 180 writers and four board members quit the festival, which was scheduled for Feb. 27-March 15. Writers’ Week is part of the broader Adelaide Festival. The three remaining board members, the chair and Writers’ Week director Louise Adler resigned. Adler announced her resignation in Guardian Australia. “I cannot be party to silencing writers,” The Guardian reported she wrote.

Some prominent writers who dropped out were American Pulitzer-prize winning author Percival Everett, British novelist Zadie Smith, former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Australian authors Helen Garner and Trent Dalton.

The Jewish Council of Australia also condemned the cancellation of Abdel-Fattah’s appearance. In a message on Instagram on Jan. 9, it said the council condemned the decision “and the board’s cynical and deplorable reference to the Dec. 14 Bondi massacre. The fact that yet another institution has caved to a relentless campaign waged against Dr. Abdel-Fatah and supporters of Palestinians should be deeply concerning to all who value a plural and open society.”

After growing backlash, the board released a statement apologizing for the distress the decision caused.

“As a Board we took this action out of respect for a community experiencing the pain from a devastating event. Instead, this decision has created more division, and for that we express our sincere apologies,” it said.

“We recognize and deeply regret the distress this decision has caused to our audience, artists and writers, donors, corporate partners, the government and our own staff and people. We also apologize to Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah for how the decision was represented and reiterate this is not about identity or dissent but rather a continuing rapid shift in the national discourse around the breadth of freedom of expression in our nation following Australia’s worst terror attack in history.

“We acknowledge and are committed to rebuilding trust with our artistic community and audience to enable open and respectful discussions at future Adelaide Writers’ Week events.”

Abdel-Fattah, a fellow in the sociology department at Sydney’s Macquarie University with expertise in Islamophobia, said on X that she rejects the apology.

“It is clear that the board’s regret extends to how the message of my cancellation was conveyed, not the decision itself,” she wrote.

“Once again the board, citing the ‘national discourse’ for an action that specifically targets me, a Palestinian Australian Muslim woman, is explicitly articulating that I cannot be part of the national discourse, which is insulting and racist in the extreme.

“The board again reiterates the link to a terror attack I had nothing to do with, nor did any Palestinian. The Bondi shooting does not mean I or anyone else has to stop advocating for an end to the illegal occupation and systematic extermination of my people — this is an obscene and absurd demand.”

Adler said the cancellation of the event was inevitable.

“It was untenable,” she said. “There were 165 sessions and as of yesterday at about 4 p.m., only 12 events had a full complement of writers left. Seventy percent of all the writers had withdrawn. You can’t stitch that back together. All those Australian writers, the internationals, people like Zadie Smith, M. Gessen, Jonathan Coe — all of that hard work, gone.

“I am so sorry that this masterclass in poor governance has landed us in this position,” she added.

It was his 26th birthday, so Wilmer Castro was not surprised by the flurry of messages that lit up his phone.

However, as he began scrolling on Saturday morning, he realised the messages were not birthday wishes, but news of something he had long hoped for: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had been removed from power.

“I think it is the best gift that I will ever receive, one I will never forget,” the university student said from Ejido.

Castro told Al Jazeera that he was so elated by the news that he began daydreaming about his future self recounting the story of Maduro’s fall to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

“I will tell them that on January 3, 2026, a dictator fell, and [that moment] is going to be very beautiful.”

The abduction of Venezuela’s long-time authoritarian leader – and his wife – by the United States followed months of escalating tensions between the two countries, including US strikes on alleged drug-trafficking vessels and the deployment of US ships near Venezuela’s coastal waters.

But by Sunday morning, Castro’s initial jubilation was clouded by a heavy quiet. The weight of uncertainty brought the city to a sombre pause, one that closed in on him and felt unlike anything he had experienced before.

“It’s like being in a field with nothing else around. It’s a mournful silence; I can’t describe it,” he said.

That uncertainty was felt by many Venezuelans on Sunday morning.

Venezuela has had a socialist government since 1999, first under President Hugo Chavez and later Maduro, a period that began with oil-funded social programmes but unravelled into economic mismanagement, corruption and repression – with international sanctions further squeezing the population.

Momentum around the 2024 presidential election raised hopes that the opposition alliance would take control. But when Maduro declared victory, despite opposition claims of a landslide win for Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, a crackdown on dissent followed. It left many Venezuelans concluding that any real transition might depend on pressure — or even intervention — from outside the country.

‘Deathly silence’

In southeastern Caracas on Saturday, 54-year-old Edward Ocariz was jolted awake by a loud crash and the vibrating windows of his home near the Fort Tiuna military barracks. He thought it was an earthquake, but when he looked outside, he saw unfamiliar helicopters flying low above smoke rising in the city.

“The noise kept coming,” he said. “I could immediately tell the helicopters were not Venezuelan because I had never seen them here.”

Then, just as suddenly as it had started, it stopped.

“There was a deathly silence,” Ocariz said, adding that the brief suspension of mobile phone services and power outages contributed to the silence. “We were waiting to understand what was happening.”

Fear accompanied the fragments of information that did manage to seep through, Ocariz said. “But it was a fear mixed with joy – tremendous joy. It’s hard to explain.”

On Sunday, when images of a blindfolded and handcuffed Maduro began circulating, Ocariz reflected on the suffering he had endured under the president’s regime.

The human rights activist said he was wrongfully charged with “terrorism” and spent nearly five months as a political prisoner in Tocuyito prison, a maximum-security facility in Carabobo state.

Under Maduro, the country had a long history of jailing those who dissent. After the disputed 2024 election, nearly 2,500 protesters, human rights activists, journalists and opposition figures were arrested. While some were later released, others remain behind bars.

“I felt satisfied. A process of justice is finally beginning,” Ocariz said, fully aware that Maduro will not have to endure the dire prison conditions he did, or be denied food and legal representation.

Despite the joy he and other Venezuelans now feel, Ocariz warns that much remains to be done.

“The population still feels a huge amount of fear [from the authorities] — psychological fear — because it’s well known how the police and justice system use their power to criminalise whoever they choose.”

So far, key institutions remain in the hands of figures from Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle, including Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, who has been named acting president.

But for many Venezuelans — including Castro and Ocariz — seeing a senior Chavista figure still in power is unsettling, particularly as the Trump administration continues to engage with her.

“It is certainly frustrating for me. However, I understand that Venezuela needs to continue with its administrative, functional, and operational management as a country, as a nation,” Ocariz said, adding that the US must maintain some order to control the power vacuum and stamp out repression.

Economic concerns

Venezuela remains heavily militarised, and fears of further unrest linger. During periods of dissent, the authorities relied not only on formal security forces but also on “colectivos”, armed civilian groups accused by rights organisations of intimidation and violence.

Jose Chalhoub, an energy and political risk analyst at Jose Parejo & Associates in Caracas, said he is concerned about the possibility of more attacks and social unrest.

“Any potential new government that will move ahead with the cleansing of the top ranks of the armed forces and security and police forces will lead to the disarmament of the colectivos,” he said, adding that fixing the lingering economic crisis should also be one of the main priorities.

“A new government that applies quick economic measures leading to a recovery will outshine the ideological legacy of the Bolivarian revolution,” he said, referring to the ideology of Chavismo, defined by anti-imperialism, patriotism and socialism.

Those loyal to Maduro have long blamed Venezuela’s economic woes on the US — namely, the sanctions it imposed on the oil sector.

Chalhoub said he believed Trump’s promise to boost the country’s oil production could help the economy, though he found the US president’s assertion that the US will “run the country” baffling.

However, not everyone is happy with the Trump administration’s attack.

Alex Rajoy, a mototaxi driver in Caracas, said the US president was on an imperialist crusade with the goal of “robbing” Venezuela of its natural resources.

Despite his anger, Rajoy said he will stay home over the coming days because he is fearful of further attacks.

“These missiles aren’t aimed only at Chavistas,” he said, referring to those loyal to Venezuela’s socialist ideology.

“They threaten opposition people, too,” he said, adding that anyone supporting foreign intervention amounts to a betrayal. “It’s treason against the homeland,” he said.

What now?

For Castro, the university student, the elation he felt on Saturday has been interrupted by fear for his immediate needs – concerns over whether stores would remain open in Ejido and rising costs. Under Maduro, he has long struggled to afford basic items.

“People in the street were going crazy yesterday,” he said. “Everyone was buying food with half of what they had in their bank accounts, buying what they could, because we don’t know what the future holds.”

The scenes brought back memories of the shortages of 2016, when hyperinflation and scarcity plunged the country into crisis, forcing people to queue for hours and rush between shops with limits on how much each person could buy.

But a day after the attack, Castro said Venezuelans are reflecting on the future of their country and the uncertainty of that future.

“There’s happiness, there’s fear, there’s gratitude, there’s the ‘what will happen next?’” he said. “For my next birthday, I want total freedom for Venezuela – and hopefully, God willing, we will have it.”

Medellin, Colombia – The shock removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro by the United States military has triggered alarm in bordering Colombia, where analysts warn of the possibility of far-reaching repercussions.

The Colombian government condemned Washington’s early Saturday morning attacks on Venezuela – which included strikes on military targets and Maduro’s capture – and announced plans to fortify its 2,219-kilometre (1,378-mile) eastern land border, a historic hotbed of rebellion and cocaine production.

Security analysts also say Maduro’s deposition could aggravate an already deteriorating security situation in Colombia, while refugee advocacy groups warn the country would bear the brunt of possible migration waves triggered by the fallout from the intervention.

The Colombian government held an emergency national security meeting at 3am (09:00GMT), according to President Gustavo Petro.

“The Colombian government condemns the attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” wrote the president in an X post, announcing the mobilisation of state forces to secure the border.

The ELN factor

The National Liberation Army (ELN), a left-wing group and the largest remaining rebel force in the country, have been vocal as recently as December in its preparations to defend the country against “imperialist intervention”.

Security analysts say the primary national security risk to Colombia following the attacks stems from ELN, which controls nearly the entire border with Venezuela.

“I think there is a high risk now that the ELN will consider retaliation, including here in Colombia, against Western targets,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, deputy director for Latin America at Crisis Group International.

The rebel group is heavily involved in cocaine trafficking and operates on both sides of the border; it has benefited from ties with the Maduro government, and US intervention threatens the group’s transnational operations, according to analysts.

The ELN, which positions itself as a bastion against US imperialism in the region, had already stepped up violence in response to the White House’s threats against Colombia and Venezuela. In December, it ordered Colombians to stay home and bombed state installations across the country, an action it described as a response to US aggression.

The Colombian government has ramped up security measures in anticipation of possible retaliatory action by the ELN following Maduro’s removal.

“All capabilities of the security forces have been activated to protect the population, strategic assets, embassies, military and police units, among others, as well as to prevent any attempted terrorist action by transnational criminal organisations, such as the ELN cartel,” read a statement on Saturday morning issued by Colombia’s Ministry of Defence.

‘Mass influx of refugees’

In addition to fears of increased violence, Colombia also stands to bear the brunt of any migration crisis initiated by a conflict in Venezuela.

In an X post on Saturday morning, Petro said the government had bolstered humanitarian provisions on its eastern border, writing, “all the assistance resources at our disposal have been deployed in case of a mass influx of refugees.”

To date, Colombia has received the highest number of Venezuelan refugees worldwide, with nearly 3 million of the approximately 8 million people who have left the country settling in Colombia.

The previous wave of mass migration in 2019 – which followed opposition leader Juan Guaido’s failed attempt to overthrow Maduro – required a massive humanitarian operation to house, feed, and provide medical attention to refugees.

Such an operation is likely to prove even more challenging now, with Colombia losing roughly 70 percent of all humanitarian funds after the Trump administration shuttered its USAID programmes in the country last year.

“There is a real possibility of short-term population movement, both precautionary and forced, especially if instability, reprisals, or power vacuums emerge,” said Juan Carlos Viloria, a leader of the Venezuelan diaspora in Colombia.

“Colombia must prepare proactively by activating protection mechanisms, humanitarian corridors, and asylum systems, not only to respond to potential arrivals, but to prevent chaos and human rights violations at the border,” added Viloria.

A further collapse in US-Colombia relations

Analysts say Maduro’s removal raises difficult questions for Petro, who has been engaged in a war of words with Trump since the US president assumed office last year.

The Colombian leader drew Trump’s ire in recent months when he condemned Washington’s military buildup in the Caribbean and alleged a Colombian fisherman had been killed in territorial waters. In response, the White House sanctioned Petro, with Trump calling him a “thug” and “an illegal drug dealer”.

“Petro is irascible at the moment because he sees Trump and his threats no longer as empty, but as real possibilities,” said Sergio Guzman, Director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a Bogota-based security consultancy.

Indeed, Trump has on multiple occasions floated military strikes against drug production sites in Colombia. However, experts say it is unlikely the White House would take unilateral action given their historic cooperation with Colombian security forces.

Despite Petro condemning Washington’s intervention in Venezuela, he previously called Maduro a “dictator” and joined the US and other nations in refusing to recognise the strongman’s fraudulent re-election as president in 2024.

Rather than supporting Maduro, the Colombian leader has positioned himself as a defender of national sovereignty and international law.

On Saturday, Petro called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which Colombia joined as a temporary member just days ago.

“Colombia reaffirms its unconditional commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,” wrote the president in an X post.

This story has been published in conjunction with Latin America Reports.