Democrats’ midterm sweep is poised to give scientists, disaster officials and weather forecasters new allies in Washington after nearly two years of upheaval under President Trump.
For the weather and climate world, which has flipped between grief and rage over Trump’s science policies, the results reopen fights over funding, staffing and federal oversight. Democratic control of Congress beginning in January will give lawmakers greater power over federal spending and oversight, setting up new fights over science funding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Weather Service.
The political shift hit close to home at a Vaisala Xweather conference in South Carolina, where physician Annie Andrews had just won a Senate seat.
“We can be optimistic,” meteorologist Jeff Freedman, who leads a University at Albany renewable energy lab, said during the conference’s cocktail hour. He added: “Hey — you can say ‘climate change’ again!”
The most immediate fight is likely to be over money, especially for scientific research. Trump’s attempts to slash funding for climate-change research have had a big effect on science labs in the U.S., which have stalled hiring for postdoctoral researchers and other personnel as they scramble to find new grants.
Experts say Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are likely to zero in on the National Science Foundation. The NSF has long supported basic science research that the private sector can build on. Trump has tried to cut NSF budgets, shrink its staff and redirect resources to American researchers, versus scientists from outside the U.S.
Freedman said grantmaking has slowed dramatically, but Congress still has “the power of the purse” and oversight powers that lawmakers can use to push for changes.
Democratic control will also give lawmakers more power to investigate how the administration has handled disasters and federal agencies.
Expect far more scrutiny of FEMA, including hearings and demands for information from lawmakers representing disaster-stricken districts, according to former FEMA Deputy Administrator for Resilience Daniel Kaniewski, who served during Trump’s first term.
Under federal law, the president ultimately decides whether to unlock FEMA recovery funds after a disaster strikes. Trump has denied requests from blue-state governors. Lawmakers who opposed FEMA job cuts, program cancellations and proposals to dismantle the agency will have far more leverage once Democrats take control of Congress in January.
“I would argue that it would be incumbent upon members of Congress to question a decision like a disaster not being declared in their district,” Kaniewski said, but Trump won’t be legally obligated to provide an answer.
Despite new oversight, the Trump administration may choose to press ahead with big restructuring plans that were already in the works. Staff from the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were expected to meet this week to discuss a “realignment” effort, according to the Washington Post.
At the National Weather Service, attention is likely to turn to staffing and funding after two years of cuts and departures.
The weather service has bipartisan support in Congress. But Ronald Morales, a former agency meteorologist in Charleston, S.C., said its budget of $1.46 billion barely kept pace with inflation during his 33-year career, which ended in the last winter.
Hundreds of weather service employees left in 2025 through layoffs, retirements and exit incentives aimed at shrinking the federal workforce. The losses ran so deep that the agency later began hiring again to rebuild depleted offices. Budgets remain severely squeezed.
With Democrats leading Congress, the weather service is more likely to get a cash infusion. “We are very much a political animal,” Morales said last week. “We shouldn’t be, but we are.”
WASHINGTON — A federal judge late Thursday blocked the Trump administration from breaking ground on a towering memorial arch for 14 days.
The temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan halting the work represents a major setback for one of President Trump’s most prominent projects in his vision to remake Washington.
The decision followed a series of steps taken earlier Thursday by the government, including the final approval of the arch by the National Capital Planning Commission in an 8-4 vote after a 9 ½ hour hearing where scores of witnesses opposed the construction.
The administration said the work could begin as soon as the approval and the Interior Department issued a final decision authorizing construction and the proper notification was published by the National Park Service.
In approving the temporary stop, Chutkan said Virginia and the District of Columbia had shown that the immediacy of the construction would cause real harm to the plaintiffs.
“The harm is certain,” she wrote. “Defendants initially notified the court that construction could begin as early as November 5, 2026, if the NCPC approves the project at its meeting that day and the Department of the Interior authorizes construction.” In their filing, Virginia and D.C. warned of traffic pattern distortions as well as concerns about the impact on mutual aid emergency calls if the arch were to proceed.
“Second, the District and Virginia will incur significant unrecoverable costs. As soon as construction begins, DDOT will need to expend staff time and operating resources to affirmatively and proactively manage temporary detours, crashes or disabled vehicles,” Chutkan wrote.
The judge ordered the government to provide a status report next Monday to ensure they are complying with the order.
The judge’s decision came just over an hour after the National Capital Planning Commission hearing ended. The vote by the commission broke along federal and local lines. Those in favor work for the administration or are connected to the president, who was pushing for the immediate construction. Opponents represented the city of Washington.
The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly in the first few hours and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery, where hundreds of thousands of fallen service members and military veterans are buried.
The panel’s Trump-appointed chairman launched the meeting with a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.
“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.
As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Commissioner Paul Ingrassia, a lawyer for the General Services Administration, said the arch was “not about politics. It’s about remembrance. It’s about celebrating our history. It’s about commemorating veterans. And it’s really something that’s a noble tribute to our nation and something that we can all rally behind.”
But D.C. City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who also serves on the planning panel, said the project has not received required approval from Congress, nor has Congress appropriated any money for it. The plan submitted to the commission does not include a reference to military use cited by Trump and other administration officials, Mendelson said.
“We cannot approve final site and building plans until we have the final site and building plans,” he said.
The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.
The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.
Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.
“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.
Other critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.
Several members of the Planning Commission used that logic in approving the project. Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.
Chutkan rejected that argument in her ruling: “The sheer improbability that a 100-year-old statute would contain authority, unknown to every previous administration, to erect a 250-foot arch at a principal location in the Nation’s capital indicates how far defendants must stretch to justify this project.”
Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press. AP videographer Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — A federal panel was expected Thursday to approve President Trump’s proposed memorial arch in Washington at the end of a meeting that drew dozens of opponents to a key part of the president’s push to leave his imprint on the nation’s capital.
The approval would clear a hurdle on the road to breaking ground on the project, and the administration has said it could launch construction within a day of the vote. But the proposed 250-foot tall gilded arch still faced legal challenges.
The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned, three-minute comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery.
The Trump-appointed chairman of the commission, however, launched into a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.
“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.
As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget. In addition to Paoletta, the arch received support during the hearing from Republican lawmakers and a veteran who praised the administration’s efforts to build the monument.
The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.
Trump is working to remake Washington
The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.
Many of the plans are being challenged in the courts, and three lawsuits have been filed opposing the arch. A judge has been asked to block the construction so long as lawsuits are still being litigated, and she could rule as early as Thursday.
Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.
“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.
Opponents argue the arch is too big for the skyline and would disrupt carefully designed sight lines between landmarks in and around the capital — most prominently the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery — that were meant to symbolize the reunification of the North and the South after the Civil War.
But the opposition has done little to influence the members of the commission, which is led by some of Trump’s closest allies. Trump appointed Paoletta to chair the 12-member panel. Two other commissioners are also White House aides.
Trump wants an arch, but it faces legal challenges
Still, a federal judge on Monday complicated Trump’s efforts to move quickly on the project.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plans, said she must be told of any decision by the planning commission within an hour. The order set the same time limits for any decision by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.
Before Thursday’s hearing began, attorneys with the Justice Department filed a notice with Chutkan informing her that a contractor had already done site prep work on Oct. 31, with what she said appeared to be no authorization from the National Park Service.
The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits are calling for a halt to work on a monument that is set to be built on a patch of grass off a bridge that spans the Potomac River and connects Washington with Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. When complete, the monument would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal.
Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.
Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.
Last week, the government submitted a 106-page plan for the arch that envisions a massive structure more than 12 stories high that includes a huge bronze statue of Lady Liberty with wings and carrying a torch with an eternal flame. The structure would include an observation deck with views to the east and the west and two mezzanines.
Inside the arch are rooms for program space, offices, a staff lounge, circular staircases, multiple elevators and a fire command center. The project proposes significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic on nearby roads. Administration officials have said the arch also will have a national security function.
In a recent hearing, Chutkan asked why the Trump administration was so keen on moving ahead quickly with the arch despite the ongoing lawsuits, aside from Trump’s “desire to bedazzle the city.”
Administration lawyer Robert Stander said the arch was “absolutely a high-priority project” and that any ruling delaying construction would impede the work of the government.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed Monday to extend an order blocking the Trump administration’s renovation plans for a century-old public golf course in the nation’s capital.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily bars the government from removing or damaging any additional trees on the East Potomac Golf Course. The administration must give 10 days’ notice in writing before making any “irreparable modification” to any “forms or features” of the course while the lawsuit is active.
“The Court earlier stated, ‘I am not the Lorax. I do not speak for the trees.’ The Court still does not speak for the trees. It speaks only for the rule of law,” Reyes wrote.
Reyes expressed astonishment that the government has asked her to “not to believe the sitting President” and disregard Trump’s statements about his plans for the golf course renovations.
“This started as a case about golf. That good walk spoiled. But it has become much more,” Reyes wrote. “It now forces the Court to reconcile assertions by President Donald J. Trump with the sworn testimony of multiple government employees and the argument of senior Department of Justice attorneys.”
On Oct. 18, Trump announced plans on social media to close the golf course for 15 months, starting Nov. 15, and redevelop the 106-year-old park and course despite a court challenge by the D.C. Preservation League and two golfers. A day later, Trump posted that the work would start immediately.
Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Biden, previously ordered the administration to suspend work on the project until at least Oct. 26.
Trump was asked about the case late Monday night as he arrived back at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland following a rally in Mississippi and indicated that work on the golf course will proceed as planned.
“It has the go-ahead. The judge feels that she would like to approve it as it goes along. And I didn’t know she was an architectural critic of golf courses,” Trump said sarcastically.
He added of the judge: “She knows nothing about that, so we’ll appeal that” while also calling his planned overhaul a “beautiful project for Washington, D.C.”
Trump later in a social media post reiterated a statement he made Oct. 18 that the course would close for 15 months. “We are closing the East Potomac Golf Course Site as scheduled on November 15th in order to renovate and rebuild for Competitive (with other such projects!), Safety, Modernization, and Aesthetic reasons,” he wrote.
The plaintiffs challenging the project, DC Preservation League and two golfers, claim the work is inflicting irreversible damage. At a hearing, the judge excoriated the government after workers cut down at least 400 trees over a holiday weekend with little notice to the plaintiffs.
The course renovation project is part of the Republican president’s aggressive campaign to leave his personal imprint on Washington’s historic landscape. Those plans include construction of a huge ballroom at the White House, a massive arch and the creation of a National Garden of American Heroes in West Potomac Park. DC Preservation League is part of a coalition of organizations, including the Cultural Landscape Foundation and one D.C. resident, who have filed lawsuit challenging those plans.
Reyes rejected the administration’s request for her to recuse herself from the case. The government questioned her impartiality and accused her of engaging in “egregious” behavior from the bench during an emergency hearing in the case.
In Monday’s ruling Reyes stressed that she had hoped the parties could have resolved their dispute without judicial intervention. She noted that she had denied plaintiffs’ previous requests.
“The Court would much prefer not to have to resolve Lorax v. Once‑ler redux. Indeed, for months, the Court declined to intervene,” she wrote.
But she said the government forced her hand by bulldozing hundreds of trees without any notice, doing “what it assured all it would not do.”
Reyes quoted from a golf-related opinion written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, in stressing the temporary nature of her own decision.
“Here, golf and government have again clashed,” Reyes wrote. “By issuing this preliminary injunction, the Court does not end the round: it simply marks the ball until the parties can fully and fairly litigate this case.
Democracy Forward President & CEO Skye Perryman, whose organization is co-counsel representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a big win that will rightly protect East Potomac Park from further irreparable harm.” She added, in an email, that the move will stop activities “while the case continues, and we are eager to argue the case in court.”
Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Gary Fields and Will Weissert contributed to this report.
KALAMA, Wash. — Colorado and Washington are reliably Democratic states where elected officials have rejected moves to ban transgender women and girls from female sports competitions. Now activists have gone around lawmakers to put proposed bans on both states’ ballots.
At a time when some Democratic leaders nationwide are recalibrating their approach to transgender issues, particularly sports, and polls show Americans generally back the bans, supporters are optimistic they will pass and open the door to similar efforts in other places where lawmakers have blocked bans.
Though the issue has been debated in many legislatures, this is the first time it’s going to voters.
“What is happening in 2026 is a testing ground for the future,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which supports LGBTQ+ rights.
Twenty-seven states — including all where Republicans control both the legislature and governor’s office — already have such laws.
The efforts are billed as a way to protect women and girls and keep separate spaces for them, tapping into a concern that’s gained momentum. President Trump has taken steps to roll back transgender rights. The Supreme Court has upheld state sports bans.
A June poll from Quinnipiac University found that about 7 in 10 registered voters think transgender women and girls should not be allowed to play on female sports teams. About one-quarter think they should. Democrats are divided, with about half saying transgender women and girls should be allowed and about half saying they should not.
Robert Preuhs, a professor of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver, said the absence of public polls on Colorado’s ballot measure, which also covers college sports, makes it hard to predict whether it will pass. “It’s probably going to get more support than some of the Republican candidates that will run,” he said.
Since transgender restrictions gained traction this decade, states with Democratic-led governors’ offices and legislatures generally have rejected proposals such as banning transgender people from the bathrooms that match their gender identity and restricting gender-affirming care. Most Republican-led states have adopted those policies.
In addition to the two blue-state questions, a measure in Arizona would broaden an existing ban to include private schools, and one in Nebraska would add an existing state law to the state constitution.
There’s not a clear consensus on whether transgender women and girls have a competitive advantage. Factors include the age of the athlete, the sport, whether the athlete went through male puberty and how long they’ve received hormone therapy.
But the idea that girls are being cheated is personal for some athletes.
Ahnaleigh Wilson, a 17-year-old junior at Eastmont High School, about 25 miles north of Seattle, has been speaking out against allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports since she was in junior high. She said she’d won all of her 1,600-meter races in seventh and eighth grade — until she finished second to a transgender athlete in a major meet.
“Women have fought for Title IX and our own categories and it’s very important that we keep the dignity of that, and let women have their own sports and their own spaces to be safe and completely fair,” she said, referencing the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities.
Opponents say excluding transgender girls is also unfair.
“They will say that they want to protect kids and in particular, young girls,” said Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, which is leading the opposition to the measure there, “but I don’t understand how you can protect kids and discriminate against kids at the same time.”
The Washington measure would require that a healthcare provider verify the student’s “biological sex, relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
“We see that as being as simple as a checkbox,” said Let’s Go Washington spokesperson Hallie Herzberg. “Doctors can use the history of the patient from treating them all their lives or their medical history forms.”
But Dr. Libby Loft, who opposes the measure, says the language calls for a genital inspection as part of a physical, or expensive testing.
“I think it doesn’t make any sense to force the working families of … girl sports players in Washington to pay for unnecessary medical tests to be able to weed out an estimated five or 10 girls in the state of Washington, trans girls,” Loft said.
She fears the verification requirement will lead to fewer girls — transgender or not — playing sports.
Mulvihill and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.
LONG BEACH, Wash. — Tourist dollars are drying up in this small town at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. Foot traffic is down. Visitors have less to spend on souvenirs.
And beachgoers now bring packed lunches instead of stopping at Captain Bob’s Chowder Sisters, said Melissa Huddleston, waiting for customers at her sister-in-law’s shop on Sunday.
Huddleston, 60, is depressed about the state of the country, and while she’s planning to vote in the Nov. 3 midterms, she hasn’t decided who she’ll vote for. This swing district, Washington’s 3rd, is home to a tight congressional race that will help determine the balance of power in the U.S. House.
Huddleston doesn’t think anyone in Congress can really do what she wants: Bring decorum back to the national discourse and bring the economy back to life. She isn’t a particular fan of Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, the independent-leaning Democratic incumbent, nor is she persuaded by state Sen. John Braun, the Trump-endorsed Republican challenger.
“I don’t know which one is better,” Huddleston said, shaking her head. “I really don’t.”
Melissa Huddleston waits for customers at Captain Bob’s Chowder Sisters in Long Beach, Wash.
(Justine McDaniel/Los Angeles Times)
As the battle to persuade midterm voters intensifies in the election’s final stretch, its fever pitch is evident in places like this largely rural stretch of southwest Washington — a rare three-time Trump-voting district with a Democratic incumbent.
Republican-aligned groups are pouring money into flipping the district red, considering it one of the GOP’s best chances to gain a House seat in an increasingly unfavorable environment, while Democrats see retaining the district as urgent to their effort to secure control of the chamber.
The contest offers a glimpse into a purple region a time when both parties are testing strategies for winning voter loyalty — not just in the midterms but looking ahead to 2028. And the dynamic in the candidates’ race to capture swing voters reflects the national debate gripping both parties about how moderate to be.
As Democrats debate whether progressives or centrists should chart the party’s path, Gluesenkamp Perez has modeled an independent streak that has helped her win two elections but disappointed some in her own party. And as Republicans grapple with low public support for Trump, Braun has packaged his conservatism as balanced while assuring supporters that he’s rowing in the same direction as the president and party leaders.
Interviews with more than 30 voters across the district revealed a mix of support for the two candidates, largely based on partisan politics, views about Trump and concern with which party controls the House.
“This is a very pivotal time, and this area has a history of being more of a swing [district],” said Mark Maxwell, 46, of Vancouver, Washington, who planned to vote blue. “It’s a chance for our voice to be heard.”
A sign for Washington State Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, is displayed among other campaign signs near I-5, Saturday, Oct. 10, 2026, in Ridgefield, Wash.
(Lindsey Wasson/Associated Press)
The number of congressional battlegrounds nationwide has shrunk with gerrymandering and political polarization, making the district one of about two dozen races that will decide the House majority. The West’s other highly competitive contests include three in California — those of Republican Rep. David Valadao and Democratic Rep. Adam Gray in the Central Valley and the open seat of retiring Republican Rep. Darrell Issa in the San Diego area.
In southwest Washington, polling has indicated the congressional race may be essentially tied. A late September poll commissioned by Oregon Public Broadcasting had Braun up by one point. A July Emerson College poll showed the same. Earlier this month, election forecaster Cook Political Report moved the race from a toss-up rating to lean-Democrat.
‘Stubborn loyalty’
Across the district last week, left-leaning voters said they were backing Gluesenkamp Perez — some precisely because of her maverick streak.
“She’s voted against the Democrats and I know she’s voted against the Republicans, which is what one would hope,” said Helios Ovando, 69, of Battle Ground, Wash., who decided this year to volunteer for Gluesenkamp Perez’s campaign for the first time. “She’s more about the local scene.”
Ovando has been turned off by what he sees as Republicans’ adherence to the party line; Gluesenkamp Perez’s willingness to “buck the system” gives him more confidence in her integrity, he said.
July 2026 photo of Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA)at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.
(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Gluesenkamp Perez, 38, who ran an auto shop with her husband before being elected to Congress, frames her mission as one built around the practical needs of her district. She argues that Democrats should break the Republican hold on rural districts and talks about reestablishing voters’ confidence that the Democratic Party is “listening to and reflective of working people.”
“When you have people come to Congress with a very stubborn loyalty to their communities, you get better federal policy,” Gluesenkamp Perez said in an interview.
“That’s the value of breaking up the monopolization of politics in rural America,” she added. “It gets you to a better place from a policy lens.”
She points to funding wins and work to mitigate pressures on public schools and housing costs in Congress. On Saturday evening, she talked to a crowd at a brewery about restoring shop class to junior high schools and creating measures that facilitate repairing rather than replacing electronics and appliances.
Gluesenkamp Perez’s independence has also earned her critics. She twice helped House Republicans advance their legislative agenda in September, angering Democratic leaders, and voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security in January. In each case, she said the packages contained secondary measures that aligned with her constituents’ values.
At a “No Kings” protest last weekend in Vancouver, the district’s urban center, several Democratic voters said they weren’t happy with Gluesenkamp Perez but still planned to back her.
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., speaks during an interview at a canvass launch at Recreation Park Penny Playground, Saturday, Oct. 10, 2026, in Chehalis, Wash.
(Lindsey Wasson/Associated Press)
“I will vote for her even though I don’t like her policies,” said Carol Rochat, 71, of Vancouver. “We need all the Democrats we can get, at least to get the majority, and then we’ll still work on her to try to be a little bit more progressive.”
‘Win their trust’
Gluesenkamp Perez ran against a hard-right candidate in her first two races, but this time she’s facing a less-polarizing and better-funded opponent in Braun, 59, a business owner and former Navy captain who has represented a slice of the district in the state Legislature for 13 years.
He made his pitch to a group of supporters at Long Beach’s historic train depot, framing his mission as balancing out the state’s Democratic voices in Congress and helping government “get out of the way” of its citizens.
“That’s sort of the American dream,” he said. “Government doesn’t create success for each of us, but we can set the framework for each of us to go out and find whatever success means for us.”
Braun talks about reforming tax and energy policy, funding infrastructure improvements and backing the military. He argues for balancing the federal budget, envisioning doing detailed, line-level work to find cuts that will reduce the national debt.
“He’s in line with my thinking,” said Liz Glenn, 63, of Raymond, Wash., listing Christian values, support for law enforcement and “protecting children” as some of her top concerns. A retired bookkeeper who is concerned about immigration and wants to see the House seat turn red, Glenn said she viewed maintaining a Republican majority as critical.
“It’s the only way to protect our country’s growth,” she said, adding, “Without the Republicans fighting against the perversions of the world, there’s so much non-American value being brought in.”
May 2023 photo of Washington state Sen. John Braun speaking in Olympia, Wash.
(Karen Ducey/Associated Press)
Braun told supporters that Trump’s endorsement had helped bring in financial support for his campaign. But, like other Republicans across the country, he has tried to appear independent on issues such as the war in Iran, which Braun has said the United States needs a plan to end.
“This district is a very independent district. I think it gives an opportunity to go make your case directly with the voters and win their trust … regardless of what the national picture is,” Braun said in an interview.
Pattie Gray, 66, who chairs the county Republican Party and watched Braun stump at the train depot, said Braun’s legislative and military experience made her view him as a “natural fit” for the seat.
“We need somebody who’s representing us the way we want to be represented,” Gray said. “He sees what this state needs.”
Gray, who is running for a Pacific County commissioner seat, has been door-knocking for Braun and other local Republican candidates. She’s optimistic about the chances to flip the seat, though it’s not “a shoo-in,” she said.
“We have to work really hard,” Gray said of turning out voters. “We’ve only got a couple more weeks.”
Huddleston, at the chowder shop, didn’t cast a ballot in 2024, unable to stomach supporting either party. She is motivated to vote this time because she wants to back a local Republican sheriff, whose campaign sign hung on the shop door.
But she’s upset with Trump’s brand of political divisiveness and where it has taken the country. She would prefer a Democratic majority in Congress, she said, to see if they can help fix the economy.
That might, Huddleston mused, lead her to support Gluesenkamp Perez when she fills out her ballot. But if so, it won’t be with gusto.
“Our country is horrible now,” Huddleston said. “How can you be enthusiastic about an election?”
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — Russia on Wednesday released a retired American teacher who had been imprisoned on charges of fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff said Wednesday at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg.
The release of Stephen Hubbard had been foreshadowed a day earlier in Washington, when President Trump told reporters at the White House that he had talked with Putin “at length” about the issue and had asked him to free the Michigan man.
Hubbard is the second American detainee in just over two months to be freed by Russia, and his exit from custody occurred not only during a visit by Witkoff but also at a time when Trump has taken a series of actions meant to benefit Russia as Washington’s alliance with Ukraine shows signs of fraying.
Hubbard was sentenced after a closed trial in 2024 to nearly seven years in prison. Prosecutors said he had signed a contract with the Ukrainian military after Russia sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022, and that he fought alongside them until being captured two months later. The U.S. government under the Biden administration designated Hubbard as wrongfully detained.
Witkoff, a key Trump administration envoy who has tried without success to steer Russia and Ukraine toward a settlement to end a war that will hit the five-year mark in February, thanked Putin for releasing Hubbard, telling him, “Because of you, he’s going home to his family.” The Russian leader responded that Hubbard was at the St. Petersburg airport, Pulkovo, after the release.
The release occurred at a dynamic moment in relations between the United States, Ukraine and Russia, with the Washington-Kyiv alliance being stretched by tensions over drone support as the Trump administration advances policies that aid Putin.
Trump decided Friday, for instance, to waive sanctions on Russia in a bill that Congress overwhelmingly passed to support Ukraine. Named after late South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the legislation targeted the flow of financial resources fueling Russia’s war.
That reversal followed Trump’s announcement of a deal to import Russian diesel fuel in a long-shot effort to curb high gas prices ahead of the U.S. midterm elections next month.
Witkoff met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Norway on Tuesday. He was expected to exchange ideas from that meeting, as well as proposals from European and American colleagues, in his talks with Russian leaders in St. Petersburg on Wednesday.
Hubbard is the second American freed by Russia in about the last two months, following the release in August of Marine veteran Robert Gilman, who had been gravely ill and was imprisoned on disputed charges of assaulting a police officer.
Some two dozen Americans remain imprisoned in Russia for various reasons, according to the Foley Foundation, a hostage advocacy organization.
Hubbard had been imprisoned since 2022 on charges that Hostage Aid Worldwide, a hostage advocacy group, has called bogus.
The organization in August posted an open letter to Trump that it said was written by Patricia Hubbard Fox, Hubbard’s sister, in which she offered praise for Trump but also said brother had been subjected to “constant beatings, torture and starvation” while in custody.
“Even so, everything that you’re doing isn’t going to matter to my kidnapped, American Veteran brother, Stephen James Hubbard (soon to be 74) if Putin won’t cave and let him come home and he dies up there in a Nazi prison (crying),” the letter said.
Litvinova and Tucker write for the Associated Press. Tucker reported from Washington.
WASHINGTON — Xavier Becerra was dubbed a “rising star” before he even entered the halls of Congress.
His June 1992 Democratic primary victory over Los Angeles school board member Leticia Quezada in California’s 30th Congressional District earned the 34-year-old candidate that description in The Times.
When the boyish, affable congressman became the first Latino lawmaker appointed to the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in his second term, national outlets took notice.
Thirty years later, in the final weeks of his gubernatorial race with Republican Steve Hilton, Becerra now finds himself poised to lead the most populous state in the country.
An examination of Becerra’s more than 25 years in Washington shows a politician who was skilled at building important alliances and amassing power on Capitol Hill, but had some stumbles along the way and faced criticism for his performance in his highest profile role.
Becerra built his reputation as a diligent consensus-builder — a workhorse rather than a show horse, to use an analogy favored by political scientists — but also revealed himself to be an ambitious political operator in key moments.
“He’s an affable person who’s not afraid to pull out a knife in politics while smiling,” said Christian Grose, a political science professor at USC.
Becerra’s campaign declined to comment on his time in Washington.
Becerra’s origin story traces back to his youth in Sacramento, and a moment when a high school friend was about to throw out a blank, unused application to Stanford University. The elite university was only 125 miles away, but it might as well have been across the ocean from the working-class world Becerra was raised in. Still, he applied.
He earned a law degree there four years later, and it was at Stanford that he met his wife, Carolyn Reyes, who became a physician.
After living in Boston while Reyes attended Harvard Medical School, Becerra moved to Los Angeles to work for state Sen. Art Torres. Within a few years he was tapped by Henry Lozano, then chief of staff to trailblazing Latino Rep. Edward Roybal, to run for state Assembly in 1990; and then, two years later, to succeed Roybal, who was retiring after 30 years in Congress.
Roybal endorsed Becerra, whose victory in the heavily Latino district that included Central and Eastside Los Angeles communities, was seen as a passing of the torch to the next generation.
Frank Villalobos, the founder and president of Barrio Architects, was among the leaders in East L.A. who encouraged Becerra to run for political office, and he said he was impressed early on by Becerra’s genuine commitment to the community and his ability to unite the area’s sometimes divided political factions.
“I thought if we kept this going, someday he’ll become the governor,” Villalobos said.
Becerra was part of a wave of young Latino lawmakers entering Congress, and his growing power within Democratic ranks helped him escape Roybal’s long shadow. Soon after Becerra’s barrier-breaking appointment to the Ways and Means Committee — which writes tax legislation — Becerra became chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a position he held from 1997 to 1999.
An early test
He put his growing stature to the test a few years later when he decided to enter the L.A. mayor’s race in 2001.
It didn’t go well.
Former state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa was also running, and Becerra — who had slept on Villaraigosa’s couch when he first ran for Congress — faced criticism for potentially splitting the Latino vote.
Becerra performed poorly, winning only 6% of the vote in the Democratic primary. His nice-guy reputation took a hit when his campaign was found to have been behind automated phone calls attacking Villaraigosa by a woman who falsely gave the impression that she was county Supervisor Gloria Molina, whose endorsement had been crucial in Becerra’s first run for Congress.
Becerra also faced criticism for his role in contacting White House staffers as part of an effort to push for the release of convicted L.A. cocaine dealer Carlos Vignali, whose father was a political contributor to Becerra. Vignali’s sentence was commuted by President Clinton on his last day in office; Becerra acknowledged calling the White House several times to discuss the possibility of Vignali’s release. Villaraigosa also wrote a letter on Vignali’s behalf.
Becerra told The Times in 2001 that he wasn’t lobbying for Vignali’s release, but merely asking White House officials to review the details of the conviction on behalf of the family.
“If I was going to try to put pressure on, I would have tried to call the president,” Becerra said at the time.
Villaraigosa fared better than Becerra but ultimately lost the 2001 election to City Atty. James Hahn, then rebounded to win the first of two terms as mayor in 2005.
Becerra got the better of Villaraigosa in their rematch this year in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, and won Villaraigosa’s support after.
“We’ve been friends a long time and, yes, we’ve been adversaries as well, but most of the time we’ve been friends,” Villaraigosa told The Times. “He’s got the experience and the wherewithal to lead this state.”
As for Becerra as a house guest during his first run for Congress?
“He makes his bed. He was neat,” said Villaraigosa. “He was pretty inconspicuous.”
Capitol Hill climbing
After his mayoral defeat, Becerra’s focus returned to Washington, where an alliance with another powerful Californian was a boon to his career on Capitol Hill.
Becerra was a close ally of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), serving as assistant to the speaker from 2007 to 2009.
John Lawrence, Pelosi’s former chief of staff, said that Becerra’s standing within the California delegation and particularly among Latino lawmakers was a big part of his appeal.
“Speaker Pelosi had set a goal of elevating minorities and women who had historically been excluded from leadership,” he said.
Their relationship took a hit after Becerra told progressive lawmakers in 2009 that he believed party leadership gave up too easily on including a public option in the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law the following year.
“I understand I have tire tracks on my back because Xavier threw me under the bus,” Pelosi said during a Democratic Party leadership meeting in 2009, Politico reported.
And Pelosi would later question Becerra’s appointment in 2021 to be secretary of Health and Human Services. She has not endorsed Becerra in the gubernatorial race.
But any bad blood between the two didn’t stop Becerra from continuing to advance within the party ranks.
He became chair of the House Democratic Caucus in 2012, leading weekly meetings of all Democrats in the House and uniting the party’s members.
Former Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Ron Kind said Becerra was an excellent listener and skilled at building consensus.
“He could get in the room with anyone and find common ground,” Kind said.
Becerra joined several high-stakes negotiations, notably a 2013 bipartisan effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, in the wake of the “Gang of Eight” deal struck in the Senate.
John Yarmuth, a Democratic congressman from Kentucky who was also part of the House negotiation, said Becerra was “an amazing positive force” in the process.
“I think he, more than anyone else, was focused on fixing the problem,” Yarmuth said.
Xavier Becerra bumps elbows with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) before his Senate committee confirmation hearing for Health and Human Services secretary in 2021.
(Greg Nash / Associated Press)
The group was able to achieve a compromise, but it never saw the light of day.
Then-House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, later blamed then-President Obama, whom he accused of “poisoning the well” on an immigration compromise. Yarmuth said Republicans were spooked about potential blowback.
Several potential off-ramps appeared during Becerra’s time in Washington. He was considered by Obama for U.S. trade representative in 2008, but Becerra declined the offer. After flirting with the idea of running for outgoing U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer’s seat, Becerra declined to enter the race, ultimately won by then-California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. He was briefly floated as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, but that didn’t materialize either.
In late 2016, Becerra found himself at a crossroads.
After more than a decade on the Ways and Means Committee, he faced the possibility of becoming the top Democrat on the committee and had the endorsement of the outgoing top Democrat, Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan.
But Harris’ victory in the 2016 Senate race created a vacancy for state attorney general.
Becerra decided to return home to Sacramento to take the role and spent the next four years as the state’s top law enforcement official, serving as “defender-in-chief” of the state, as USC’s Grose put it, against the Trump administration.
Fraught second act in D.C.
Becerra returned to Washington in 2021 for a second act that would prove to be far more controversial than his first.
Despite having no background in healthcare, Becerra was nominated to be the secretary of Health and Human Services and confirmed, over significant opposition by Republicans.
He took the reins of the healthcare agency as the country was still grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic and struggled to establish a clear role for himself in a response effort that was centered in the White House.
In his first year in office, he was called out by reporters for failing to hold regular press briefings.
And he faced criticism when health officials under his purview offered contradictory information in late 2021 about reduced quarantine requirements for people testing positive for COVID-19.
And Becerra’s chief of staff at Health and Human Services and longtime advisor, Sean McCluskie, pleaded guilty last year to participating in a scheme to use campaign funds from a dormant Becerra state political committee to pay for McCluskie’s frequent travel between Washington and California.
Dana Williamson, a longtime political consultant for Becerra and former chief of staff to Gov. Gavin Newsom, pleaded guilty earlier this year for her role in the scheme. McCluskie and Williamson are scheduled to be sentenced in December. Neither Becerra nor Newsom were accused of wrongdoing.
Democratic operative Xochitl Hinojosa, who served as the spokesperson for the Department of Justice in the Biden administration, earlier this year offered a blunt assessment of Becerra’s performance.
“He was not effective in government, and I think that a lot of people in the Biden administration are talking about this because they realize that he was not an effective HHS secretary,” Hinojosa said on CNN in May.
While other members of the Biden administration have defended Becerra’s performance, his time at the helm highlighted an issue that even allies concede has bedeviled Becerra in the past, his tendency to sometimes recede into the background.
Loretta Sanchez, a former Democratic congresswoman from Orange County who credits Becerra with encouraging her to run for Congress, put it simply.
“Will Xavier be bold?” she said. “I hope he takes those bold moves, because California needs it.”
WASHINGTON — Federal agents on Monday searched the home of Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a startling escalation in a criminal investigation that brings renewed scrutiny to the frequent target of Trump administration derision in the final weeks of her reelection bid.
Omar said she will “not be silenced” and called the search of her home the “latest escalation” in President Trump’s ‘‘intimidation” campaign.
The search of the Minnesota congresswoman’s home so close to next month’s midterm contests that will determine control of the House and the Senate was swiftly condemned by top Democrats in Congress and raised questions about the timing given longstanding Justice Department protocol to avoid overt investigative steps involving political candidates in the direct run-up to an election.
The Justice Department confirmed in a statement that Homeland Security Investigations agents executed a judicially authorized search warrant in the Washington, D.C., area in connection with an ongoing federal criminal investigation but provided no other details.
The nature and scope of the investigation were unclear, though officials in Trump’s administration have repeatedly hinted at the existence of an inquiry targeting Omar, a Somali-born Democrat whose status as an immigrant to the U.S. and left-wing views have repeatedly drawn criticism from Republicans and senior Trump officials.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last month that there was an “ongoing investigation” related in part to whether Omar lied on her immigration forms and that “something’s going to happen.”
Though the Republican focus on Omar’s background dates back years, the search of her home took place three weeks before the November midterms, in which Omar is on the ballot for reelection. The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid public investigative actions involving a candidate within 60 days of a primary or general election.
“For years, Donald Trump and far-right extremists have relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Omar with vile personal attacks and baseless accusations,” top House Democratic leaders said in a statement. “Now, less than 30 days until the midterm election, his violent mass deportation machine has descended upon the home of a duly elected Member of Congress and her family.”
A Homeland Security officer walks out of the Washington residence of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., during a search, Monday.
(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
Trump has frequently targeted Omar
Trump as recently as this past weekend brought up Omar at a rally in Tennessee, where he attacked her upbringing and suggested that Vice President JD Vance “and our people” were investigating her.
Vance has in the past accused Omar of committing immigration fraud — an allegation she has denied — and has said he and a top White House official were trying to figure out how to investigate her.
On Monday morning, the street in Washington where Omar lives was blocked off as HSI agents remained near the home.
“This enforcement action is part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation,” the department said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, of which Homeland Security Investigations is part, referred questions about the search to the Justice Department.
Omar has long been a target for Republicans
Omar, who was first elected to the House in 2018, represents Minnesota’s 5th District, including Minneapolis. She is part of “The Squad,” progressive lawmakers who are a vibrant political force on the left wing of Congress but have also endured repeated attacks from Trump, dating to his first term. She was one of the first two Muslim American women in the House and the first African refugee to be elected to Congress.
When Republicans swept control of the House in 2023, they voted to oust Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee, citing her anti-Israel remarks.
In January, Trump lashed out at Omar during a rally in Iowa hours before an assailant sprayed the congresswoman during a town hall meeting in Minneapolis with a substance that turned out to be vinegar. The attacker was sentenced to 14 months in prison.
Republicans have raised questions about Omar’s past since before she was elected, including asserting that she had married her brother and committed immigration fraud. Omar has broadly denied the allegations as “disgusting lies.”
“It certainly seems like something fishy is there, but everybody’s entitled to equal justice under the laws,” Vance told reporters in May. “So we’re going to investigate it. We’re going to take a look at it. If we think there’s a crime, we’re going to prosecute that crime.”
In a separate interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, Vance said without offering evidence that “we actually think that Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America.”
He said that he and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller had been discussing it.
“That’s the thing that we’re trying to figure out,” he said. “What are the legal remedies now that we know that she’s committed immigration fraud? … How do you build the case necessary to get some, some, some justice for the American people?”
Omar’s office has defended her against past allegations
Omar’s office in March dismissed Vance’s claims as fabricated and defamatory.
“This is rich coming from someone who literally said they were willing to ‘create stories’ to redirect the media,” Omar’s chief of staff, Connor McNutt, said in a statement.
“This is a ridiculous lie and desperate attempt to distract from the pedophile protection party’s unpopular war of choice, increasing gas prices, and rapidly dropping polling numbers,” McNutt said.
Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price and River Zhang in Washington, Kathy McCormack in Concord, N.H., Mike Catalini in Morrisville, Pa., and Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.
Trump has boasted repeatedly that “to the victor belong the spoils,” in reference to Venezuelan oil. (Presidential Press)
Venezuelan provisional president Delcy Rodríguez’s all-smiles photo op with Trump in a Manhattan hotel on September 22 proved too much for some of her erstwhile supporters. For the Spanish leftist Juan Carlos Monedero, a staunch defender of Hugo Chávez, Maduro and at first Rodríguez, her New York appearance “clashed with the previous socialist and anti-imperialist discourse” of her movement.
Shortly before the encounter, Rodríguez evaded a reporter’s question about whether she would visit jailed Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in Brooklyn. Her decision to stay clear of Maduro is consistent with her attempt to chart a new course for Venezuela.
Rodríguez became interim president following the bloody U.S. military incursion on January 3, 2026 that resulted in the kidnapping of Maduro and the First Lady Cilia Flores. Facing the prospect of a second, more devastating military attack, Rodríguez shifted sharply toward Washington on foreign and oil policy while reshuffling the public administration and military at the expense of hardline pro-Chávez (Chavista) loyalists.
Rodriguez’s strategy goes too far
Rodríguez’s strategy from the outset was to demonstrate that she was not cowardly submitting to Washington’s dictates or acting as a collaborationist a la Vichy France. Her wholehearted embrace of policies pushed by Washington is designed to dispel any impression that she is bowing to U.S. pressure. On many key issues, she has become as Catholic as the Pope with regard to Trump, while retaining the Chavista label. Shortly after January 3, Rodríguez affirmed “there is no foreign agent” governing Venezuela, a claim unconvincingly echoed by the second in command Diosdado Cabello who alleged “we don’t depend on anyone.”
In a different vein, pro-Rodríguez analysts argue that the interim president has zero options given the U.S. threats. Either submit to Washington or expect massive bombardment and/or a return of the old regime.
But there is clear evidence that Rodríguez has some latitude, albeit limited, which she has declined to fully exercise. That’s because Trump is fully wedded to his partnership with her.
Trump decided to recognize Rodríguez rather than right-wing leader María Corina Machado – much to the disappointment of Miami-based anti-Communist hawks – for good reasons. A confidential CIA report requested by the Trump administration prior to January 3 warned that the Venezuelan opposition lacked support within the pro-Chavista armed forces as well as the police force. The conclusion was obvious: turning power over to Machado was a recipe for chaos, if not civil war.
Trump has assimilated the Pentagon’s assessment of “de-Baathification” following the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a “complete disaster,” responsible for the endless internecine conflict in that nation. Trump has repeatedly invoked the Iraq fiasco when discussing the Rodríguez government. At one press conference he noted with reference to Venezuela “We had, as you remember, Iraq, where everybody got fired…And you know what they turned into? ISIS. And we don’t want that.”
Moreover, the decision to recognize Rodríguez rather than Machado was not taken on a whim but rather followed months of careful deliberation at the highest level of the Trump administration. He now touts his partnership with Rodríguez as a major success at a time in which he has very few of them to tout. It is thus unlikely that Trump will readily turn his back on Rodríguez. The upshot is that Rodríguez has some room to maneuver.
How much wiggle room?
The Chavista movement under Rodríguez has retreated from its defining banner: the uncompromising defense of national sovereignty. To its credit, the movement’s leadership continues to cast itself as an opponent of the traditional elite and a defender of the collective production units known as “communes.” But these positive features fall short for a movement that once raised such high expectations. While retaining a sense of realism, Rodríguez could have at least maintained a more neutral position on issues that compromised national sovereignty.
One of the most troubling examples was Venezuela’s collaboration in the extrajudicial killing of Niño Guerrero, leader of the criminal Tren de Aragua, in a U.S. Southern Command missile strike in the state of Bolívar in June 2026. The Venezuelan government, which provided intelligence information to the Southern Command, issued a statement in which it “congratulated” all participants in the operation. In doing so, Caracas lent credence to Trump’s false narrative that drug traffickers are terrorists. At the very least, the Rodríguez government could have stayed out of the operation while maintaining a neutral public posture.
Equally striking was the marked presence of Israeli military officers, including senior army officer Brigadier General Elad Edri, at a formal farewell meeting on July 21 in which Rodríguez thanked Israel for its earthquake relief efforts. U.S. and Israeli military involvement in the recovery operations drew objections from Chavista social movements, such as the famed Caracas barrio-based Coordinadora Simón Bolívar. They especially resented the conspicuousness of the presence of military personnel of both nations, symbolized by a controversial photograph of a beaming Diosdado Cabello shaking hands with U.S. Southern Command chief Francis L. Donovan, who had overseen the January 3 incursion. This, then, was another instance in which the Chavista leadership offered Washington a level of support that went well beyond what was necessary given the circumstances.
Still another example of the lengths to which Rodríguez has gone in accommodating Washington is her willingness to accept the Pentagon’s participation in the Venezuelan oil industry. The mega oil deal reached between Washington and Caracas in late August gives the Pentagon 35 percent ownership of the operating company that is to exploit 17 Venezuelan oil fields representing nearly 150 percent of U.S. proven reserves. But there is no precedent for the Pentagon’s equity ownership of this nature which is of dubious legality. Venezuelan analyst Phil Gunson, who has been briefed on the deal, told the Guardian that the major oil companies “are concerned about the irregularities.” From Venezuela’s viewpoint, the involvement of the Pentagon in the nation’s oil business makes little sense.
From the perspective of the Pentagon and its Israeli counterpart, Rodríguez’s conciliatory stance appears to be a vindication and a reversal of Chavista defiance – if not a payback for past grievances. In January 2000 Chávez turned back a sizable relief operation that the same U.S. Southern Command was in the process of sending in response to catastrophic floods, which had devastated the state of Vargas the previous month. Chávez’s decision was an embarrassing rebuff for the Pentagon, if not humiliating.
Along similar lines, Roni Kaplan, spokesperson for the Israeli armed forces and a member of his nation’s aid mission, told CE Noticias Financieras-English on July 22, “it’s like when you fight with someone and they come to apologize, and when they say they’re sorry, you say, “‘I’ve already forgotten all about it.’” Kaplan’s statement puts in sharp relief the extent to which Rodríguez’s posture breaks with the Chavista past.
Where things now stand
The pro-Chavista think tank Misión Verdad puts a positive spin on Rodríguez’s strategy. According to its take, the Manhattan meeting with Trump marked the point at which “Washington’s asymmetric coercion and the strategic adaptation deployed by the Chavista movement converge.” For both Trump and Rodríguez, the aim was the same: “stabilization… to reduce political costs by sacrificing ideological orthodoxy.” The asymmetry according to the Misión Verdad statement “does not erase the agency of the quantitatively weaker actor; it alters its tactics, shifting it from open confrontation toward strategic adaptation.”
The adaptation demanded by the asymmetry is captured in a slogan championed by Diosdado Cabello: “Venezuela: Reborn United.” Strip away the Misión’s lofty language, and the message is that the Chavista movement needs to make a fundamental break with its past in important ways.
Adaption is understandable given the circumstances of January 3. But if Chavismo abandons the banner of defense of national sovereignty, little remains of what defined the movement. And that is precisely where the strategy of being “as Catholic as the Pope” in accommodating Washington has led.
That’s not to say there are easy answers or that an alternative strategy would necessarily succeed, particularly given Trump’s notorious unpredictability. Nor does it mean that Rodríguez deserves to be demonized as a sellout as so many on the left are doing. Such demonization underestimates the challenges and uniqueness of the situation, at the same time that it divides the solidarity movement. The relative unity of the Chavista leadership has been one of its strengths ever since Chávez’s death in 2013, and the same needs to be preserved in the solidarity movement.
The problem is that the options available to Rodríguez are scarce, whereas Trump has many. He need not pull off another January 3. Nearly all Venezuela’s oil-derived revenue is in a U.S. account handled by Marco Rubio. All Rubio has to do is to withhold it or scale it back whenever Rodríguez steps out of line with Washington.
Even with this reality hanging over her, Rodríguez and other Chavista leaders have put forward two major demands: free Maduro and Flores and an end to the sanctions, which remain largely intact. Rodríguez, however, has not put these two demands front and center in her dialogue with the Trump administration – not by a long shot.
As pressure from Miami grows for Venezuela to set an electoral timetable, the position that elections and harsh sanctions are incompatible would shift responsibility for any delay onto Washington. Last Spring, Chavista leader Ernesto Villegas, who headed the government’s Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence, called for “elections free of sanctions.” Linking elections explicitly to the lifting of sanctions would allow the Rodríguez government to reclaim some distance from Washington, even as U.S. blackmail severely limits its ability to fully assert national sovereignty.
Steve Ellner is a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela where he lived for over 40 years and is currently Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. He is the author and editor of over a dozen books on Latin American politics and history. In 2018 he spoke in over twenty cities in the U.S. and Canada as part of a Venezuelan solidarity tour.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.
