vow

Caracas, January 7, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has vowed to control Venezuelan oil sales for an “indefinite” period in the wake of the January 3 bombings and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“Instead of the oil being blockaded, we’re gonna let the oil flow to US refineries and around the world to bring better oil supplies, but have those sales done by the US,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a Goldman Sachs conference on Wednesday, January 7.

According to Wright, the process would begin with crude that is currently loaded on tankers that have not left Venezuelan shores because of the US naval blockade, before selling future production “indefinitely, going forward.”

A “fact sheet” published by the Department of Energy went on to claim that proceeds from sales of Venezuelan crude “will first settle in US-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks to guarantee the legitimacy and integrity of the ultimate distribution of proceeds.”

The document stated that a “selective rollback” of US economic sanctions will allow transactions involving Venezuelan oil products in global markets. The Department of Energy likewise announced supplies of diluents and equipment to Venezuela’s oil industry, which also require the lifting of sanctions, alongside broader US investment in the oil sector and electric grid.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed in a Wednesday press conference that the US has a “three-step plan” for Venezuela in the wake of the January 3 military attack. The first step involves “stabilizing” the country to allow for the arrival of US and Western corporations, before a stage of “national reconciliation” and finally a “transition.”

In the wake of the strikes that killed over 80 people in the Caribbean nation, Trump and administration officials have repeatedly threatened the Venezuelan government into accepting its demands, especially in the oil sector.

On Wednesday, US authorities announced the seizure of two new tankers as part of efforts to strangle Venezuelan crude exports. Rubio recently referred to the US’ naval blockade as a “lever of leverage” against Caracas. US forces had previously seized two other tankers transporting Venezuelan crude.

According to ABC, Washington has demanded that Caracas’ oil production and exports be done exclusively with US partners. In 2025, over 80 percent of Venezuelan crude exports were destined for Chinese refineries. However, Politico reported that US oil conglomerates are reluctant to invest heavily in Venezuela.

Trump had emphasized in recent weeks that the US’ main interest was control over Venezuela’s oil industry and reserves. On Tuesday, he wrote on social media that Venezuelan authorities had agreed to “turn over 30-50 million barrels” of oil to the US, in reference to the crude currently blockaded, and that he would “control” the proceeds.

On Wednesday, Trump published another social media post claiming that Caracas would only be purchasing US-made products with the oil sales revenues.

US actions have drawn domestic criticism, with Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy blasting Rubio’s “insane plan.”

“They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for an undefined time period as leverage to micromanage the country. The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning,” Murphy told press.

Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, for its part, issued a statement on January 7 informing of talks for the “sale of large volumes of crude to the United States.” The communiqué made no reference to the terms alleged by US officials.

“PDVSA ratifies its commitment to continue building alliances that boost national development and contribute to global economic stability,” the text read.

PDVSA added that the prospective agreement would follow a “scheme” similar to the one that currently applies to Chevron. 

The US oil giant is a minority partner in four joint ventures with PDVSA. Under its present sanctions waiver, Chevron allocates crude for PDVSA to sell. However, under a previous license, Chevron would commercialize all the oil before transferring proceeds to its Venezuelan partners.

Acting President and Oil Minister Delcy Rodríguez has not commented on the US officials’ claims. In a Wednesday night televised broadcast, she said Venezuela has developed “diversified economic and geopolitical relations” all around the world.

The Venezuelan oil industry has faced multiple waves of economic sanctions dating back to the first Trump administration, including financial sanctions, an export embargo and secondary sanctions.

Caracas has made repeated calls for foreign investment, including from US companies. US refineries, particularly in the Gulf Coast, are especially geared toward Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude blends. The US was the main destination for Venezuelan oil exports prior to the 2019 embargo.
The Nicolás Maduro government additionally created favorable conditions for oil partners in a bid to ramp up oil production. The 2020 Anti-Blockade Law establishes mechanisms that supersede Venezuela’s hydrocarbon legislation, including concessions whereby private companies can lift more than half the crude produced.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democratic leaders accused President Trump of unleashing a political vendetta after he announced plans to freeze roughly $10 billion in federal funding for child care and social services programs in California and four other Democrat-controlled states.

Trump justified the action in comments posted on his social media platform Truth Social, where he accused Newsom of widespread fraud. The governor’s office dismissed the accusation as “deranged.”

Trump’s announcement came amid a broader administration push to target Democratic-led states over alleged fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, following sweeping prosecutions in Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed the planned funding freeze, which was first reported by The New York Post.

California officials said they have received no formal notice and argued the president is using unsubstantiated claims to justify a move that could jeopardize child care and social services for low-income families.

How we got here

Trump posted on his social media site Truth Social on Tuesday that under Newsom, California is “more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible???” In the post, Trump used a derogatory nickname for Newsom that has become popular with the governor’s critics, referring to him as “Newscum.”

“The Fraud Investigation of California has begun,” Trump wrote.

The president also retweeted a story by the New York Post that said his Department of Health and Human Services will freeze taxpayer funding from the Child Care Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which is known as CalWORKS in California, and the Social Services Block Grant program. HHS said that the impacted states are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York.

“For too long, Democrat-led states and Governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said Andrew Nixon, a HHS spokesperson. “Under the Trump Administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

HHS announced last month that all 50 states will have to provide additional levels of verification and administrative data before they receive more funding from the Child Care and Development Fund following a series of fraud schemes at Minnesota day care centers run by Somali residents.

“The Trump Administration is using the moral guise of eliminating ‘fraud and abuse’ to undermine essential programs and punish families and children who depend on these services to survive, many of whom have no other options if this funding disappears,” Kristin McGuire, president of Young Invincibles, a young-adult nonprofit economic advocacy group, said in a statement. “This is yet another ideologically motivated attack on states that treats millions of families as pawns in a political game.”

California pushes back

Newsom’s office brushed off Trump’s post about fraud allegations, calling the president “a deranged, habitual liar whose relationship with reality ended years ago.” Newsom himself said he welcomes federal fraud investigations in the state, adding in an interview on MS NOW that aired Monday night: “Bring it on … if he has some unique insight and information, I look forward to partnering with him. I can’t stand fraud.”

However, Newsom said cutting off funding hurts hard-working families who rely on the assistance.

“You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

California has not been notified of any changes to federal child care or social services funding. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the Department of Finance, said the only indication from Washington that California’s childcare funding could be in jeopardy was the vague 5 a.m. post Tuesday by the president on Truth Social.

“The president tosses these social media missives in the same way Mardi Gras revelers throw beads on Bourbon Street — with zero regard for accuracy or precision,” Palmer said.

In the current state budget, Palmer said California’s childcare spending is $7.3 billion, of which $2.2 billion is federal dollars. Newsom is set to unveil his budget proposal Friday for the upcoming fiscal year that begins July 1, which will mark the governor’s final spending plan before he terms out. Newsom has acknowledged that he is considering a 2028 bid for president, but has repeatedly brushed aside reporters’ questions about it, saying his focus remains on governing California.

Palmer said while details about the potential threat to federal childcare dollars remain unclear, what is known is that federal dollars are not like “a spigot that will be turned off by the end of the week.”

“There is no immediate cutoff that will happen,” Palmer said.

Since Trump took office, California has filed dozens of legal actions to block the president’s policy changes and funding cuts, and the state has prevailed in many of them.

What happened in Minnesota

Federal prosecutors say Minnesota has been hit by some of the largest fraud schemes involving state-run, federally funded programs in the country. Federal prosecutors estimate that as much as half of roughly $18 billion paid to 14 Minnesota programs since 2018 may be fraudulent, with providers accused of billing for services never delivered and diverting money for personal use.

The scale of the fraud has drawn national attention and fueled the Trump administration’s decision to freeze child care funds while demanding additional safeguards prior to doling out money, moves that critics say risk harming families who rely on the programs. Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and appointed a director of program integrity. Amid the fallout, Walz announced he will not seek a third term.

Outrage over the fraud reached a fever pitch in the White House after a video posted online by an influencer purported to expose extensive fraud at Somali-run child care centers in Minnesota. On Monday, that influencer, Nick Shirley, posted on the social media site X, “I ENDED TIM WALZ,” a claim that prompted calls from conservative activists to shift scrutiny to Newsom and California next.

Right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson posted on X that his team will be traveling to California next week to show “how criminal California fraud is robbing our nation blind.”

California officials have acknowledged fraud failures in the past, most notably at the Employment Development Department during the COVID-19 pandemic, when weakened safeguards led to billions of dollars in unemployment payments later deemed potentially fraudulent.

An independent state audit released last month found administrative vulnerabilities in some of California’s social services programs but stopped short of alleging widespread fraud or corruption. The California State Auditor added the Department of Social Services to its high-risk list because of persistent errors in calculating CalFresh benefits, which provides food assistance to those in need — a measure of payment accuracy rather than criminal activity — warning that federal law changes could eventually force the state to absorb billions of dollars in additional costs if those errors are not reduced.

What’s at stake in California

The Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal child care, welfare and social services funding would impact $7.3 billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding, $2.4 billion for child care subsidies and more than $800 million for social services programs in the five states.

The move was quickly criticized as politically motivated because the targeted states were all Democrat-led.

“Trump is now illegally freezing childcare and other funding for working families, but only in blue states,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said in a statement. “He says it’s because of ‘fraud,’ but it has nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with politics. Florida had the largest Medicaid fraud in U.S. history yet isn’t on this list.”

Added California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas: “It is unconscionable for Trump and Republicans to rip away billions of dollars that support child care and families in need, and this has nothing to do with fraud. California taxpayers pay for these programs — period — and Trump has no right to steal from our hard-working residents. We will continue to fight back.”

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report.

Washington, DC – It has become a familiar pattern. United States presidents conduct unilateral military actions abroad. Congress shrugs.

On Saturday, in the hours after the US military abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Democrats in the Senate pledged to raise yet another resolution to rein in US President Donald Trump’s military actions.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber, has said the party will push for a vote within the week. By all accounts, the odds of its success remain long.

Since Trump took office for a second term in 2025, Congress has weighed multiple bills that would force him to seek legislative approval before initiating a military strike.

But the latest attack on Venezuela offers a stark instance of presidential overreach, one that is “crying out for congressional action”, according to David Janovsky, the acting director of the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight.

Experts say it is also one of the clearest tests in recent history of whether Congress will continue to cede its authority to check US military engagement abroad.

“There are a lot of angles where you can come at this to say why it’s a clear-cut case,” Janovsky told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that, under the US Constitution, Congress alone wields the authority to allow military action. He also noted that the Venezuela attack “is in direct contravention of the UN Charter, which is, as a treaty, law in the United States”.

“Any of the fig leaves that presidents have used in the past to justify unilateral military action just don’t apply here,” Janovsky added. “This is particularly brazen.”

An uphill battle

Since August, the Trump administration has signalled plans to crank up its “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela.

That month, Trump reportedly signed a secret memo calling on the US military to prepare for action against criminal networks abroad. Then, on September 2, the Trump administration began conducting dozens of strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats off the Venezuelan and Colombian coasts.

That deadly bombing campaign was itself condemned as a violation of international law and an affront to Congress’s constitutional powers. It coincided with a build-up of US military assets near Venezuela.

Trump also dropped hints that the US military campaign could quickly expand to alleged drug-trafficking targets on Venezuelan soil. “When they come by land, we’re going to be stopping them the same way we stopped the boats,” Trump said on September 16.

The strikes prompted two recent votes in the House of Representatives in December: one that would require congressional approval for any land strikes on the South American country, and one that would force Trump to seek approval for strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats.

Both resolutions, however, failed roughly along party lines. A similar resolution in the Senate, which would have required congressional approval before any more attacks, also fell short in November.

But speaking to reporters in a phone call just hours after the US operation on Saturday, Senator Tim Kaine said he hoped the brashness of Trump’s latest actions in Venezuela would shock lawmakers into action.

Republicans, he said, can no longer tell themselves that Trump’s months-long military build-up in the Caribbean and his repeated threats are a “bluff” or a “negotiating tactic”.

“It’s time for Congress to get its a** off the couch and do what it’s supposed to do,” Kaine said.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, US Senator Chris Murphy also agreed that it was “true” that Congress had become impotent on matters of war, a phenomenon that has spanned both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Bash pointed to former President Barack Obama’s 2011 military deployment to Libya, which went unchecked by Congress.

“Congress needs to own its own role in allowing a presidency to become this lawless,” Murphy responded.

Republicans ho-hum about resolutions

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II.

Instead, lawmakers have historically passed Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to approve committing troops to recent wars, including the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the strikes on alleged al-Qaeda affiliates across the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

No AUMFs have been passed that would relate to military action in Venezuela.

When lawmakers believe a president is acting beyond his constitutional power, they can pass a war powers resolution requiring Congressional approval for further actions.

Beyond their symbolism, such resolutions create a legal basis to challenge further presidential actions in the judiciary.

However, they carry a high bar for success, with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress needed to override a presidential veto.

Given the current makeup of Congress, passage of a war powers resolution would likely require bipartisan support.

Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, so it would be necessary for members of Trump’s own party to back a war powers resolution for it to be successful.

In November’s Senate vote, only two Republicans — co-sponsor Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska — split from their party to support the resolution. It failed by a margin of 51 to 49.

December’s vote on a parallel resolution in the House only earned 211 votes in favour, as opposed to 213 against. In that case, three Republicans broke from their party to support the resolution, and one Democrat opposed it.

But Trump’s abduction of Maduro has so far only received condemnation from a tiny fragment of his party.

Overall, the response from elected Republicans has been muted. Even regular critics of presidential adventurism have instead focused on praising the ouster of the longtime Venezuelan leader, who has been accused of numerous human rights abuses.

Senator Todd Young, a Republican considered on the fence ahead of November’s war powers vote, has praised Maduro’s arrest, even as he contended the Trump administration owed Congress more details.

“We still need more answers, especially to questions regarding the next steps in Venezuela’s transition,” Young said.

Some Democrats have also offered careful messaging in the wake of the operation.

That included Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat who represents a large Venezuelan diaspora community in Florida.

In a statement on Saturday, Wasserman Schultz focused on the implications of Maduro’s removal, while avoiding any mention of the military operation that enabled it. Instead, she asserted that Trump owed Congress an explanation about next steps.

“He has failed to explain to Congress or the American people how he plans to prevent the regime from reconstituting itself under Maduro’s cronies or stop Venezuela from falling into chaos,” she wrote.

In December, however, Wasserman Schultz did join a group of Florida Democrats in calling for Congress to exercise its oversight authority as Trump built up military pressure on Venezuela.

What comes next?

For its part, the Trump administration has not eased up on its military threats against Venezuela, even as it has sought to send the message that Maduro’s abduction was a matter of law enforcement, not the start of a war.

Trump has also denied, once again, that he needed congressional approval for any further military action. Still, in a Monday interview with NBC News, he expressed optimism about having Congress’s backing.

“We have good support congressionally,” he told NBC. “Congress knew what we were doing all along, but we have good support congressionally. Why wouldn’t they support us?”

Since Saturday’s attack and abduction, Trump has warned that a “second wave” of military action could be on the horizon for Venezuela.

That threat has extended to the potential for the forced removal of Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, who was formally sworn in as the country’s interim president on Monday.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic magazine.

The administration has also said that strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela will continue and that US military assets will remain deployed in the region.

Constitutional expert Janovsky, however, believes that this is a critical moment for Congress to act.

Failure to rein in Trump would only further reinforce a decades-long trend of lawmakers relinquishing their oversight authorities, he explained. That, in turn, offers tacit support for the presidency’s growing power over the military.

“To say this was a targeted law enforcement operation — and ignore the ongoing situation — would be a dangerous abdication of Congress as a central check on how the United States military is used,” Janovsky said.

“Continued congressional inaction does nothing but empower presidents to act however they want,” he added.

“To see Congress continue to step back ultimately just removes the American people even farther from where these decisions are actually being made.”

ADAM Peaty’s mum has U-turned on her decision to gatecrash his wedding to Holly Ramsay.

The Olympian uninvited his mother Caroline Peaty and the rest of his relatives from their big day after a family fallout.

Distraught Caroline had been intent on travelling to the lavish ceremony in Bath tomorrow despite being snubbed.

However, the swimming star’s mum has backed down, with a family member telling The Sun: “She will not be there because it would be too sad and she don’t want to spoil his big day.”

The change of heart comes as Holly Ramsay and her family were spotted leaving their £7.5m mansion to travel to the wedding venue.

Dad-of-one Adam, 30, and Holly, 25, are due to wed at Bath Abbey in Somerset on Saturday, December 27.

COUNT DOWN

Holly Ramsay celebrates last Xmas as a Miss as she prepares to marry Adam Peaty

MISSING YOU

Adam Peaty’s mum shares Christmas heartbreak after being uninvited from wedding

Caroline had previously insisted: “I will be there and I will watch from the street.”

But she changed her mind after her devoted husband Mark made her see sense, telling her it would be “too upsetting’ to be there.”

Around 200 people are set to attend Adam’s wedding including Holly’s chef dad Gordon and their close friends David and Victoria Beckham.

But there won’t be any surprises from unwanted guests.

Sources say the couple have booked Bath Abbey “all-day” and tourists will also be stopped from entering the landmark.

A security team is also set to patrol to stop people trying to take pictures of the couple.

Caracas, December 15, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan Armed Forces reiterated their commitment to defend the Caribbean nation’s airspace amid an escalating US military buildup and provocations.

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino issued a statement Sunday to mark the 47th anniversary of the Venezuelan Integral Airspace Defense Command (CODAI), hailing the system’s “effective and immediate” response capabilities against “imperialist threats.”

“With its modern radars, missile systems and surface-to-air artillery, CODAI has become the vanguard of the country’s defense,” Padrino wrote on social media. The defense minister went on to highlight CODAI’s “technological independence.”

Padrino’s comments occurred amid a large-scale US military buildup in the Caribbean in a self-declared anti-narcotics mission. The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to launch strikes against purported drug targets inside Venezuelan territory.

After moving their largest US aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the region in November, US forces have likewise ramped up warplane deployments to bases in Puerto Rico. According to reports, the US Navy moved six EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets to the island’s Roosevelt Roads naval station.

Designed by Boeing, the EA-18G Growlers have advanced capabilities to disrupt and deceive enemy military electronic systems, including air defenses.

Open-access flight tracking websites have shown EA-18G Growlers operating in the Caribbean in recent days.  On Tuesday, F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets flew for 40 minutes close to the Gulf of Venezuela in the country’s west. Analysts argued that the warplanes could have been mapping air defense systems spotted in the region days before.

On Friday night, social media users watching flight trackers reported that a Growler, codenamed GRIZZLY2, and a Super Hornet, codenamed RHINO61, were flying over Venezuela’s Los Roques archipelago and continental mainland, respectively. However, the false positions were a consequence of trackers such as Flight Radar 24 extrapolating an aircraft’s position for a limited time after losing signal on the basis of the last measured position and speed.

The Venezuelan government and armed forces have consistently denounced the US military maneuvers, accusing Washington of attempting to fabricate a false flag incident to justify an open conflict.

The US’ increased military activity has also affected commercial aviation. On Sunday, JetBlue denounced that an airplane on a Curaçao-New York had to halt its ascent due to the presence of a US Air Force refueling tanker in its path. Curaçao is 40 miles away from Venezuela’s coast.

US authorities have also issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) urging extra caution to planes flying in Venezuela’s Flight Information Region (FIR). For his part, Trump wrote on social media that Venezuela’s airspace should be “considered closed.”

International airlines flying to and from Caracas have suspended their services. Venezuelan companies continue to offer connections to regional destinations including Panama City, Bogotá and Santo Domingo.

ALBA alliance condemns US threats

Amidst the ongoing US military threats and buildup, the Nicolás Maduro government has received diplomatic backing from its main allies. Last week, the Venezuelan leader held phone calls with his Russian, Iranian and Brazilian counterparts to discuss bilateral relations and the threats to peace in the region.

On Sunday, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP) held a virtual summit and issued a statement condemning the Trump administration’s declared intentions to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the hemisphere.

The regional body likewise condemned recent US hostile actions, including the seizure of a tanker carrying Venezuelan crude last week. The US Treasury Department followed by imposing new sanctions, blacklisting shipping companies allegedly involved in transporting Venezuelan oil.

Venezuela’s state oil company denounced a cyberattack targeting its operational capabilities but stated that its effects had been minimized. According to Bloomberg, the reported attack caused loading delays in Venezuela’s main oil terminal.

The White House has justified its military buildup and coercive measures escalation with “narcoterrorism” charges against Maduro and other top Venezuelan officials. However, US agencies have not provided court-tested evidence to back the claims, while reports from specialized agencies have shown Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

International leaders and foreign policy analysts have stated that Washington’s ultimate goal is regime change to seize control of Venezuela’s natural resources.

Edited by Cira Pascual Marquina in Caracas.