|
|
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
End Texas Torture of Revolutionary Elder Xinachtli
Organization Support Letter
Letter to demand the immediate medical treatment and release of Chicano political prisoner Xinachtli (Alvaro Hernandez #00255735)
To the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
We, the undersigned organizations, write to urge immediate action to protect the life, health, and human rights of Xinachtli (legal name Alvaro Hernandez). Xinachtli is 73-year-old Chicano community organizer from Texas who has spent 23 years in solitary confinement and 30 years incarcerated as part of a 50-year sentence. His health is now in a critical and life-threatening state and requires prompt and comprehensive medical intervention.
Since his conviction in 1997, Xinachtli has spent decades in conditions that have caused significant physical and psychological harm. As an elder in worsening health, these conditions have effectively become a de facto death sentence.
Xinachtli’s current medical condition is severe. His physical, mental, and overall well-being have declined rapidly in recent weeks. He now requires both a wheelchair and a walker, has experienced multiple falls, and is suffering from rapid weight loss. He is currently housed in the McConnell Unit infirmary, where he is receiving only palliative measures and is being denied a medical diagnosis, access to his medical records, and adequate diagnostic testing or treatment.
A virtual clinical visit with licensed medical doctor Dr. Dona Kim Murphey underscores the severity of his condition. In her report of the visit, she wrote: "Given the history of recent neck/back trauma and recurrent urinary tract infections with numbness, weakness, and bowel and bladder incontinence, I am concerned about nerve root or spinal cord injury and/or abscesses that can lead to permanent sensorimotor dysfunction."
Despite his age and visible disabilities, he remains in solitary confinement under the Security Threat Group designation as a 73-year-old. During his time in the infirmary, prison staff threw away all of his belongings and “lost” his commissary card, leaving him completely without basic necessities. He is experiencing hunger, and the lack of consistent nutrition is worsening his medical condition. McConnell Unit staff have also consistently given him incorrect forms, including forms for medical records and medical visitation, creating further barriers to care and communication.
A family visit on November 29 confirmed the seriousness of his condition. Xinachtli, who was once able to walk on his own, can no longer stand without assistance. He struggled to breathe, has lost more than 30 pounds, relied heavily on his wheelchair, and was in severe pain throughout the visit.
In light of these conditions, we, the undersigned organizations, demand that TDCJ take immediate action to save Xinachtli’s life and comply with its legal and ethical obligations.
We urge the immediate implementation of the following actions:
Immediate re-instatement of his access to commissary to buy hygiene, food, and other critical items. Immediate transfer to the TDCJ hospital in Galveston for a full medical evaluation and treatment, including complete access to his medical records and full transparency regarding all procedures. Transfer to a geriatric and medical unit that is fully accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Xinachtli requests placement at the Richard P LeBlanc Unit in Beaumont, Texas. Approval of Medical Recommended Intensive Supervision, the release program for individuals with serious medical conditions and disabilities, in recognition of the severity and progression of his current health issues. Failure to act will result in the continued and foreseeable deterioration of Xinachtli’s health, amounting to state-sanctioned death. We urge TDCJ to take swift and decisive action to meet these requests and to fulfill its responsibility to safeguard his life and well-being.
We stand united in calling for immediate and decisive action. Xinachtli’s life depends on it.
Signed, Xinachtli Freedom Campaign and supporting organizations
Endorsing Organizations:
Al-Awda Houston; All African People’s Revolutionary Party; Anakbayan Houston; Anti-Imperialist Solidarity; Artists for Black Lives' Equality; Black Alliance for Peace - Solidarity Network; Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society; Community Liberation Programs; Community Powered ATX; Contra Gentrificación; Diaspora Pa’lante Collective; Down South; DSA Emerge; Entre nos kc; Fighting Racism Workshops; Frontera Water Protectors; GC Harm Reductionists; JERICHO MOVEMENT; Jericho Movement Providence; Montrose Anarchist Collective; NYC Jericho Movement; OC Focus; Palestine Solidarity TX; Partisan Defense Committee; Partido Nacional de la Raza Unida; PDX Anti-Repression; Red Star Texas; Root Cause; San Francisco Solidarity Collective; Shine White Support Team; Sunrise Columbia; UC San Diego Faculty for Justice in Palestine; Viva Palestina, EPTX; Water Justice and Technology Studio; Workshops4Gaza.
Sign the endorsement letter for your organization here:
https://cryptpad.fr/form/#/2/form/view/MiR1f+iLiRBJC7gSTyfhyxJoLIDhThxRafPatxdbMWI/
IMPORTANT LINKS TO MATERIALS FOR XINACHTLI FREEDOM CAMPAIGN:
PHONE BLAST: Your community can sign up for a 15-minute-long call shift here: bit.ly/xphoneblast
FUNDRAISER: Here is the link to Jericho's fundraiser for Xinachtli: http://givebutter.com/jerichomovement
CASE HISTORY: Learn more about Xinachtli and his case through our website: https://freealvaro.net
CONTACT INFO:
Follow us on Instagram: @freexinachtlinow
Email us:
xinachtlifreedomcampaign@protonmail.com
COALITION FOLDER:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/SP3KTC1RK4#KARGiPQVYIvR
In the folder you will find: Two pictures of Xinachtli from 2024; The latest updated graphics for the phone blast; The original TRO emergency motion filing; Maria Salazar's declaration; Dr. Murphy's report from her Dec. 9 medical visit; Letter from Amnesty International declaring Xinachtli's situation a human rights violation; Free Xinachtli zine (which gives background on him and his case); and The most recent press release detailing who Xinachtli is as well as his medical situation.
Write to:
Alvaro Hernandez CID #00255735
TDCJ-W.G. McConnell Unit
PO Box 660400
Dallas, TX 75266-0400
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Help World-Outlook Win New Subscribers
(the subscription is free of charge)
Dear reader,
Over the last month, World-Outlook and its sister publication in Spanish Panorama-Mundial have published unique coverage of U.S. and world events.
This includes the three-part interview with Cuban historian and writer Ernesto Limia Díaz, ‘Cuba Is the Moral and Political Compass of the World.’ A related article by Mark Satinoff, World Votes with Cuba to Demand an End to U.S. Blockade, included information on the campaign to send medical aid to Cuba in the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa and was shared widely by the Los Angeles Hands Off Cuba Committee and other Cuba solidarity groups.
A number of readers sent their appreciation for Cathleen Gutekanst’s article Chicago Residents Fight ICE Abductions, Deportations, which provided a compelling, eyewitness account of this example of working-class resistance to the Trump administration’s war on undocumented immigrants. Some readers shared it widely on social media platforms.
The news analysis Bigotry, Jew Hatred Take Center Stage in GOP Mainstream also generated interest. It is part of World-Outlook’s consistent analysis of the danger of the rise of incipient fascism that Trumpism has posed for the working class and its allies in the U.S. and the world.
Most recently, another article by Mark Satinoff, ‘From Ceasefire to a Just Peace’ in Israel and Occupied Territories, was promoted by Friends of Standing Together (FOST NY/NJ) on the group’s website. Alon-Lee Green and Sally Abed — the two Standing Together leaders featured at the November 12 event in Brooklyn, New York, that Mark’s article covered — and Israelis for Peace sent their thanks to Mark for his accurate reporting.
This is a small sample of the news coverage and political analysis World-Outlook offers.
We ask you to use this information to try to convince at least one of your acquaintances, colleagues, friends, fellow students, neighbors, or relatives to subscribe to World-Outlook. As you know, the subscription is free of charge. Increasing World-Outlook’s subscription base will widen the site’s reach. It will also provide new impetus to improve our coverage. Comments and reactions from subscribers, or initiatives from readers to cover events in their areas, often result in unexpectedly invaluable articles or opinion columns clarifying important political questions.
Feel free to share this letter, or part of its contents, with those you are asking to subscribe. And keep World-Outlookinformed about the reactions you get from potential new readers.
In solidarity,
World-Outlook editors
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Funds for Kevin Cooper
Kevin was transferred out of San Quentin and is now at a healthcare facility in Stockton. He has received some long overdue healthcare. The art program is very different from the one at San Quentin but we are hopeful that Kevin can get back to painting soon.
For 41 years, an innocent man has been on death row in California.
Kevin Cooper was wrongfully convicted of the brutal 1983 murders of the Ryen family and houseguest. The case has a long history of police and prosecutorial misconduct, evidence tampering, and numerous constitutional violations including many incidences of the prosecution withholding evidence of innocence from the defense. You can learn more here .
In December 2018 Gov. Brown ordered limited DNA testing and in February 2019, Gov. Newsom ordered additional DNA testing. Meanwhile, Kevin remains on Death Row at San Quentin Prison.
The funds raised will be used to help Kevin purchase art supplies for his paintings . Additionally, being in prison is expensive, and this money would help Kevin pay for stamps, books, paper, toiletries, supplies, supplementary food, printing materials to educate the public about his case and/or video calls.
Please help ease the daily struggle of an innocent man on death row!
An immediate act of solidarity we can all do right now is to write to Kevin and assure him of our continuing support in his fight for justice. Here’s his address:
Kevin Cooper #C65304
Cell 107, Unit E1C
California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF)
P.O. Box 213040
Stockton, CA 95213
www.freekevincooper.org
Call California Governor Newsom:
1-(916) 445-2841
Press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish,
press 6 to speak with a representative and
wait for someone to answer
(Monday-Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. PST—12:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. EST)
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Dr. Atler Still Needs Our Help!
Please sign the petition today!
https://www.change.org/p/texas-state-university-give-tom-alter-his-job-back
What you can do to support:
—Donate to help Tom Alter and his family with living and legal expenses: https://gofund.me/27c72f26d
—Sign and share this petition demanding Tom Alter be given his job back: https://www.change.org/p/texas-state-university-give-tom-alter-his-job-back
—Write to and call the President and Provost at Texas State University demanding that Tom Alter be given his job back:
President Kelly Damphousse: president@txstate.edu
President’s Office Phone: 512-245-2121
Provost Pranesh Aswath: xrk25@txstate.edu
Provost Office Phone: 512-245-2205
For more information about the reason for the firing of Dr. Tom Alter, read:
"Fired for Advocating Socialism: Professor Tom Alter Speaks Out"
Ashley Smith Interviews Dr. Tom Alter
—CounterPunch, September 24, 2025
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Stop Cop City Bay Area
Did you know about a proposed $47 million regional police training facility in San Pablo—designed for departments across the Bay Area?
We are Stop Cop City Bay Area (Tours & Teach-Ins), a QT+ Black-led grassroots collective raising awareness about this project. This would be the city’s second police training facility, built without voter approval and financed through a $32 million, 30-year loan.
We’re organizing to repurpose the facility into a community resource hub and youth center. To build people power, we’re taking this conversation on the road—visiting Bay Area campuses, classrooms, cafes, and community spaces via our Fall 2025 Tour.
We’d love to collaborate with you and/or co-create an event. Here’s what we offer:
Guest Speaker Presentations—5-minute visits (team meetings, classrooms, co-ops, etc.), panels, or deep dives into:
· the facility’s origins & regional impacts
· finding your role in activism
· reimagining the floorplan (micro-workshops)
· and more
· Interactive Art & Vendor/Tabling Pop-Ups — free zines, stickers, and live linocut printing with hand-carved stamps + artivism.
· Collaborations with Classrooms — project partnerships, research integration, or creative assignments.
· Film Screenings + Discussion — e.g., Power (Yance Ford, 2024) or Riotsville, U.S.A. (Sierra Pettengill, 2022), or a film of your choice.
👉 If you’re interested in hosting a stop, open to co-creating something else, or curious about the intersections of our work: simply reply to this email or visit: stopcopcitybayarea.com/tour
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to connecting.
In solidarity,
Stop Cop City Bay Area
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Dear Organization Coordinator
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to invite your organization to consider co-sponsoring a regional proposal to implement Free Public Transit throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
This initiative directly supports low-income families, working people, seniors, youth, and others who rely on public transportation. It would eliminate fare barriers while helping to address climate justice, congestion, and air pollution—issues that disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities.
We believe your organization’s mission and values align strongly with this proposal. We are seeking endorsements, co-sponsorship, and coalition-building with groups that advocate for economic and racial equity.
I would love the opportunity to share a brief proposal or speak further if you're interested. Please let me know if there’s a staff member or program director I should connect with.
A description of our proposal is below:
sharethemoneyinstitute@gmail.com
Opinion: San Francisco Bay Area Should Provide Free Public Transportation
The San Francisco Bay Area is beautiful, with fantastic weather, food, diversity and culture. We’re also internationally famous for our progressiveness, creativity, and innovation.
I believe the next amazing world-leading feature we can add to our cornucopia of attractions is Free Public Transportation. Imagine how wonderful it would be if Muni, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, SamTrans, SF Bay Ferries, and all the other transportation services were absolutely free?
Providing this convenience would deliver enormous, varied benefits to the 7.6 million SF Bay Area residents, and would make us a lovable destination for tourists.
This goal - Free Public Transportation - is ambitious, but it isn’t impossible, or even original. Truth is, many people world-wide already enjoy free rides in their smart municipalities.
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is promoting free transit, with a plan that’s gained the endorsement of economists from Chile, United Kingdom, Greece, and the USA.
The entire nation of Luxembourg has offered free public transportation to both its citizens and visitors since 2020. Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, has given free transit to its residents since 2013. In France, thirty-five cities provide free public transportation. Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, offers free rides to seniors, disabled, and students. In Maricá (Brazil) – the entire municipal bus system is free. Delhi (India) – offers free metro and bus travel for women. Madrid & Barcelona (Spain) offer free (or heavily discounted) passes to youth and seniors.
Even in the USA, free public transit is already here. Kansas City, Missouri, has enjoyed a free bus system free since 2020. Olympia, Washington, has fully fare-free intercity transit. Missoula, Montana, is free for all riders. Columbia, South Carolina, has free buses, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has enjoyed free transit for over a decade. Ithaca, New York, and Madison, Wisconsin, offer free transit to students.
But if the San Francisco Bay Area offered free transit, we’d be the LARGEST municipality in the world to offer universal Free Transit to everyone, resident and visitor alike. (Population of Luxembourg is 666,430. Kansas City 510,704. Population of San Francisco Bay Area is 7.6 million in the nine-county area)
Providing free transit would be tremendously beneficial to millions of people, for three major reasons:
1. Combat Climate Change - increased public ridership would reduce harmful CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Estimates from Kansas City and Tallinn Estonia’s suggest an increase in ridership of 15 percent. Another estimate from a pilot project in New York City suggests a ridership increase of 30 percent. These increases in people taking public transportation instead of driving their own cars indicates a total reduction of 5.4 - 10.8 tons of emissions would be eliminated, leading to better air quality, improved public health, and long-term climate gains.
2. Reduce Traffic Congestion & Parking Difficulty - Estimates suggest public transit would decrease traffic congestion in dense urban areas and choke points like the Bay Bridge by up to 15 percent. Car ownership would also be reduced. Traffic in San Francisco is the second-slowest in the USA (NYC is #1) and getting worse every year. Parking costs in San Francisco are also the second-worst in the USA (NYC #1), and again, it is continually getting worse.
3. Promote Social Equity - Free transit removes a financial cost that hits low-income residents hard. Transportation is the second-biggest expense after housing for many Americans. In the Bay Area, a monthly Clipper pass can cost $86–$98 per system, and much more for multi-agency commuters. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, this is a significant cost. People of color, immigrants, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities rely more heavily on public transit. 55–70% of frequent transit riders in the Bay Area are from low-to moderate-income households, but these riders usually pay more per mile of transit than wealthy drivers. Free fares equalize access regardless of income or geography.
Free transit would help people 1) take jobs they couldn’t otherwise afford to commute to, thus improving the economy, 2) Stay in school without worrying about bus fare, 3) Get to appointments, child care, or grocery stores without skipping meals to afford transit.
To conclude: Free Public Transit should be seen as a civil rights and economic justice intervention.
The Cost? How can San Francisco Bay Area pay for Free Transit throughout our large region?
ShareTheMoney.Institute estimates the cost as $1.5 billion annually. This sum can acquired via multiple strategies. Corvallis, Oregon, has had free public bus service since 2011, paid for by a $3.63 monthly fee added to each utility bill. Missoula, Montana, funds their fare-free Mountain Line transit system, via a property tax mill levy. Madison, Wisconsin’s transit is supported by general fund revenues, state and federal grants, and partnerships/sponsorships from local businesses and organizations.
Ideally, we’d like the funds to be obtained from the 37 local billionaires who, combined, have an approximate wealth of $885 billion. The $1.5 billion for free transit is only 0.17% of the local billionaire's wealth. Sponsorship from the ultra-wealthy would be ideal. Billionaires can view the “fair transit donation” they are asked to contribute not as punishment or an “envy tax”, but as their investment to create a municipality that is better for everyone, themselves included. They can pride themselves on instigating a world-leading, legacy-defining reform that will etch their names in history as leaders of a bold utopian reform.
Our motto: “we want to move freely around our beautiful bay”
——
Hank Pellissier - Share The Money Institute
Reverend Gregory Stevens - Unitarian Universalist EcoSocialist Network
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*  Russia Confirms Jailing of Antiwar Leader Boris Kagarlitsky In a secret trial on June 5, 2024, the Russian Supreme Court’s Military Chamber confirmed a sentence of five years in a penal colony for left-wing sociologist and online journalist Boris Kagarlitsky. His crime? “Justifying terrorism” — a sham charge used to silence opponents of Putin’s war on Ukraine. The court disregarded a plea for freedom sent by thirty-seven international luminaries. Kagarlitsky, a leading Marxist thinker in Russia’s post-Soviet period, recently addressed socialists who won’t criticize Putin: “To my Western colleagues, who…call for an understanding of Putin and his regime, I would like to ask a very simple question. [Would] you want to live in a country where there is no free press or independent courts? In a country where the police have the right to break into your house without a warrant? …In a country which…broadcasts appeals on TV to destroy Paris, London, Warsaw, with a nuclear strike?” Thousands of antiwar critics have been forced to flee Russia or are behind bars, swept up in Putin’s vicious crackdown on dissidents. Opposition to the war is consistently highest among the poorest workers. Recently, RusNews journalists Roman Ivanov and Maria Ponomarenko were sentenced to seven, and six years respectively, for reporting the military’s brutal assault on Ukraine. A massive global solidarity campaign that garnered support from thousands was launched at Kagarlitsky’s arrest. Now, it has been revived. This internationalism will bolster the repressed Russian left and Ukrainian resistance to Putin’s imperialism. To sign the online petition at freeboris.info —Freedom Socialist Party, August 2024 https://socialism.com/fs-article/russia-jails-prominent-antiwar-leader-boris-kagarlitsky/#:~:text=In%20a%20secret%20trial%20on,of%20Putin's%20war%20on%20Ukraine. Petition in Support of Boris KagarlitskyWe, the undersigned, were deeply shocked to learn that on February 13 the leading Russian socialist intellectual and antiwar activist Dr. Boris Kagarlitsky (65) was sentenced to five years in prison. Dr. Kagarlitsky was arrested on the absurd charge of 'justifying terrorism' in July last year. After a global campaign reflecting his worldwide reputation as a writer and critic of capitalism and imperialism, his trial ended on December 12 with a guilty verdict and a fine of 609,000 roubles. The prosecution then appealed against the fine as 'unjust due to its excessive leniency' and claimed falsely that Dr. Kagarlitsky was unable to pay the fine and had failed to cooperate with the court. In fact, he had paid the fine in full and provided the court with everything it requested. On February 13 a military court of appeal sent him to prison for five years and banned him from running a website for two years after his release. The reversal of the original court decision is a deliberate insult to the many thousands of activists, academics, and artists around the world who respect Dr. Kagarlitsky and took part in the global campaign for his release. The section of Russian law used against Dr. Kagarlitsky effectively prohibits free expression. The decision to replace the fine with imprisonment was made under a completely trumped-up pretext. Undoubtedly, the court's action represents an attempt to silence criticism in the Russian Federation of the government's war in Ukraine, which is turning the country into a prison. The sham trial of Dr. Kagarlitsky is the latest in a wave of brutal repression against the left-wing movements in Russia. Organizations that have consistently criticized imperialism, Western and otherwise, are now under direct attack, many of them banned. Dozens of activists are already serving long terms simply because they disagree with the policies of the Russian government and have the courage to speak up. Many of them are tortured and subjected to life-threatening conditions in Russian penal colonies, deprived of basic medical care. Left-wing politicians are forced to flee Russia, facing criminal charges. International trade unions such as IndustriALL and the International Transport Federation are banned and any contact with them will result in long prison sentences. There is a clear reason for this crackdown on the Russian left. The heavy toll of the war gives rise to growing discontent among the mass of working people. The poor pay for this massacre with their lives and wellbeing, and opposition to war is consistently highest among the poorest. The left has the message and resolve to expose the connection between imperialist war and human suffering. Dr. Kagarlitsky has responded to the court's outrageous decision with calm and dignity: “We just need to live a little longer and survive this dark period for our country,” he said. Russia is nearing a period of radical change and upheaval, and freedom for Dr. Kagarlitsky and other activists is a condition for these changes to take a progressive course. We demand that Boris Kagarlitsky and all other antiwar prisoners be released immediately and unconditionally. We also call on the authorities of the Russian Federation to reverse their growing repression of dissent and respect their citizens' freedom of speech and right to protest. Sign to Demand the Release of Boris Kagarlitskyhttps://freeboris.infoThe petition is also available on Change.org *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* |
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Mumia Abu-Jamal is Innocent!
FREE HIM NOW!
Write to Mumia at:
Smart Communications/PADOC
Mumia Abu-Jamal #AM-8335
SCI Mahanoy
P.O. Box 33028
St. Petersburg, FL 33733
Join the Fight for Mumia's Life
Since September, Mumia Abu-Jamal's health has been declining at a concerning rate. He has lost weight, is anemic, has high blood pressure and an extreme flair up of his psoriasis, and his hair has fallen out. In April 2021 Mumia underwent open heart surgery. Since then, he has been denied cardiac rehabilitation care including a healthy diet and exercise.
He still needs more complicated treatment from a retinal specialist for his right eye if his eyesight is to be saved:
Donate to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Legal and Medical
Defense Fund
Mumia has instructed PrisonRadio to set up this fund. Gifts donated here are designated for the Mumia Abu-Jamal Medical and Legal Defense Fund. If you are writing a check or making a donation in another way, note this in the memo line.
Send to:
Mumia Medical and Legal Fund c/o Prison Radio
P.O. Box 411074, San Francisco, CA 94103
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Resources for Resisting Federal Repression
https://www.nlg.org/federalrepressionresources/
Since June of 2020, activists have been subjected to an increasingly aggressive crackdown on protests by federal law enforcement. The federal response to the movement for Black Lives has included federal criminal charges for activists, door knocks by federal law enforcement agents, and increased use of federal troops to violently police protests.
The NLG National Office is releasing this resource page for activists who are resisting federal repression. It includes a link to our emergency hotline numbers, as well as our library of Know-Your-Rights materials, our recent federal repression webinar, and a list of some of our recommended resources for activists. We will continue to update this page.
Please visit the NLG Mass Defense Program page for general protest-related legal support hotlines run by NLG chapters.
Emergency Hotlines
If you are contacted by federal law enforcement, you should exercise all of your rights. It is always advisable to speak to an attorney before responding to federal authorities.
State and Local Hotlines
If you have been contacted by the FBI or other federal law enforcement, in one of the following areas, you may be able to get help or information from one of these local NLG hotlines for:
Portland, Oregon: (833) 680-1312
San Francisco, California: (415) 285-1041 or fbi_hotline@nlgsf.org
Seattle, Washington: (206) 658-7963
National Hotline
If you are located in an area with no hotline, you can call the following number:
National NLG Federal Defense Hotline: (212) 679-2811
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Articles
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
1) A Study Is Retracted, Renewing Concerns About the Weedkiller Roundup
Problems with a 25-year-old landmark paper on the safety of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, have led to calls for the E.P.A. to reassess the widely used chemical.
By Hiroko Tabuchi, January 2, 2026
“The retraction points to a wider problem of research secretly funded by industries like tobacco and lead, said David Rosner, co-director of the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University. ‘Shading the science to favor the corporate interest,’ he said, was likely ‘the rule rather than the exception.’ Journals needed to ‘press scientists more forcefully to identify conflicts of interest,’ he said. ‘Huge financial interests are at stake.’”
U.S. regulators consider it safe, but the World Health Organization has said glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Seth Perlman/Associated Press
In 2000, a landmark study claimed to set the record straight on glyphosate, a contentious weedkiller used on hundreds of millions of acres of farmland. The paper found that the chemical, the active ingredient in Roundup, wasn’t a human health risk despite evidence of a cancer link.
In December, the study was retracted by the scientific journal that published it a quarter century ago, setting off a crisis of confidence in the science behind a weedkiller that has become the backbone of American food production. It is used on soybeans, corn and wheat, on specialty crops like almonds, and on cotton and in home gardens.
The Environmental Protection Agency still considers the herbicide to be safe. But the federal government faces a deadline in 2026 to re-examine glyphosate’s safety after legal action brought by environmental, food-safety and farmworker advocacy groups.
The E.P.A. has also faced pressure to act on glyphosate from the Make America Healthy Again movement, led by supporters of the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who once served as co-counsel in a lawsuit against Monsanto over exposure to Roundup.
The 2000 paper, a scientific review conducted by three independent scientists, was for decades cited by other researchers as evidence of Roundup’s safety. It became the cornerstone of regulations that deemed the weedkiller safe.
But since then, emails uncovered as part of lawsuits against the weedkiller’s manufacturer, Monsanto, have shown that the company’s scientists played a significant role in conceiving and writing the study.
In the emails, Monsanto employees praised each other for their “hard work” on the paper, which included data collection, writing and review. One Monsanto employee expressed hope that the study would become “‘the’ reference on Roundup and glyphosate safety.” The pharmaceutical giant Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion.
In retracting the study last month, the journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, cited “serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors.” Martin van den Berg, the journal’s editor in chief, said the paper had based its conclusions largely on unpublished studies by Monsanto.
There were indications that the authors had received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work, he said. There was no disclosure of a conflict of interest on the part of the authors beyond a mention in the acknowledgments that Monsanto had provided scientific support. As a result, Dr. van den Berg said, he “had lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.”
Brian Leake, a spokesman for Bayer, said Monsanto’s involvement with the 2000 paper “did not rise to the level of authorship and was appropriately disclosed in the acknowledgments” and that the listed authors “had full control over and approved the study’s manuscript.”
He said that glyphosate was “the most extensively studied herbicide over the past 50 years” and that “the vast majority of published studies had no Monsanto involvement.”
The sole surviving author of the 2000 article, Gary M. Williams, who is a professor at New York Medical College, did not respond to requests for comment.
Traces of glyphosate have been detected in foods like bread, cereal and snacks, and in the urine of both adults and children, though there are signs that levels in food have dropped after public pressure led some companies to stop applying glyphosate shortly before harvest, a practice that leaves behind more chemical residues.
The World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
“This is a seismic, long-awaited correction of the scientific record,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, who is a pediatrician and epidemiologist and the dean of global health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
Dr. Landrigan recently chaired an advisory committee for a global glyphosate study that found that even low doses of glyphosate-based herbicides caused leukemia in rats.
“It pulls the veil off decades of industry efforts to create a false narrative that glyphosate is safe” he said. “People have developed cancers, and people have died because of this scientific fraud.”
Laboratory tests first flagged potential risks posed by exposure to glyphosate as far back as the early 1980s, and soon after, studies of Midwestern farmers exposed to herbicides started to show an increase in certain cancers. A U.S.-backed effort to eradicate coca fields in Colombia and Ecuador by spraying glyphosate from planes onto hundreds of thousands of acres of cropland led to widespread reports of illnesses among local residents.
The 2000 paper declaring glyphosate safe was published against that backdrop.
As the E.P.A. faces its 2026 deadline to reconsider the safety of the weedkiller, the agency’s critics are likely to highlight that the retracted paper appears in the bibliography of past E.P.A.’s risk assessment on glyphosate.
The E.P.A. “should reopen the decision immediately,” said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, an expert in environmental neurotoxins at Simon Fraser University outside Vancouver who specializes in infant exposures. “There also need to be consequences, real financial penalties that reflect medical costs and human suffering,” he said.
An E.P.A. spokesman, Mike Bastasch, said the agency was aware of the article’s retraction. He said the E.P.A.’s assessment of glyphosate’s risks had not relied solely on the study, and that the agency did not intend to rely on it going forward. “It’s our statutory obligation to ensure agency-approved chemicals and pesticides are totally safe for approved uses listed on the label based on rigorous, gold standard science,” Mr. Bastasch said.
Thousands of plaintiffs, mostly farmers and gardeners diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, have sued Monsanto alleging that Roundup caused their cancer and that the company had covered up the risks. In an early case, a jury in a California state court awarded $289 million to Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper, after concluding that glyphosate had caused his cancer. Monsanto, jurors said, had failed to warn consumers of the risk.
Since then, Bayer has paid out more than $10 billion to settle approximately 100,000 Roundup claims, and faces the potential of further costly lawsuits and jury verdicts, given the many thousands of people who may have been exposed. The settlements have not included admissions of liability or wrongdoing, and Bayer has continued to sell the product.
Bayer has also pushed Congress to pass a provision that would effectively shield pesticide makers from potentially having to pay further damages to plaintiffs. The Trump administration recently urged the Supreme Court to hear a case that could also shield manufacturers from liability.
The retraction points to a wider problem of research secretly funded by industries like tobacco and lead, said David Rosner, co-director of the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University. “Shading the science to favor the corporate interest,” he said, was likely “the rule rather than the exception.” Journals needed to “press scientists more forcefully to identify conflicts of interest,” he said. “Huge financial interests are at stake.”
The withdrawal of the 2000 paper came after two Harvard scientists, Sasha Kaurov and Naomi Oreskes, urged the journal to re-examine the article. They estimated in a recently published analysis that the 2000 paper was in the top 0.1 percent of cited academic literature on glyphosate.
What was surprising, they said, was that other researchers continued to cite the 2000 paper even after the emails were disclosed in litigation, starting in 2017. “This paper has been one of the most cited papers ever written on the topic of glyphosate safety,” Professor Oreskes said.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
2) Watch Live: Trump Speaks After U.S. Captures Venezuela President Maduro
Jan. 3, 2026
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-states-strikes-venezuela#pam-bondi-maduro-indictment
President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela during a rally in Caracas on Monday, December 1, 2025. Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times
Venezuela Live Updates: Trump Says U.S. Will ‘Run the Country’ After Capture of Maduro
Here’s the latest:
President Trump said the United States would “run” Venezuela until there can be a proper transition of power following the military operation that captured the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.
Mr. Trump said the couple was being taken to New York to face drug and weapons charges. A newly unsealed indictment of Mr. Maduro and his wife is similar to one handed up against the Venezuelan leader in 2020.
Mr. Maduro has led Venezuela since 2013 and his capture raised questions about the future of his government. María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, called for unity.
Trump put no time limit on the American occupation. It would be up to the United States to decide when to return the country to Venezulan control. And then he turned to oil, saying that American companies would fix the infrastructure, “and start making money for the country.”
David E. Sanger
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:46 a.m. ET
“We are going to run the country until such time that we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said, suggesting an occupation. The United States has done this before, in Germany, in Japan, and of course Iraq. But the history is checkered.
Maggie Haberman
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:45 a.m. ET
What comes next in terms of Venezuelan leadership is unclear, Trump said, the United States would be in charge until there is a clear safe transition. He emphasized it three times.
Tyler Pager
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:44 a.m. ET
“We are going to run the country,” Trump said of Venezuela. He said he did not want the Maduro regime to continue with another leader.
David E. Sanger
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:43 a.m. ET
“They knew we were coming,″ Trump said, arguing the Venezuelan military was quickly overwhelmed. “Not a single American service member was killed,″ he said, though earlier he suggested there were casualties.
David E. Sanger
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:42 a.m. ET
Trump suggested the United States turned off the power in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital. He didn’t say how, but either a direct physical attack on the grid, or a cyberattack, would be the most likely method.
David E. Sanger
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:42 a.m. ET
Trump opens by saying “overwhelming American military power” was used, from “air, land and sea” to seize Maduro, and he also compared it to other operations he ordered, including the attack in June on Iran’s nuclear sites. He contends that “no other nation” could pull off this kind of operation.
Maggie Haberman
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:41 a.m. ET
Trump began his Mar-a-Lago news conference saying the Venezuela operation was a force the likes of which hadn’t been seen since World War II. Trump, who has been awake virtually all night, looks and sounds fatigued.
Tyler Pager
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:40 a.m. ET
Trump is surrounded by a number of his national security officials: Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Dan Caine, John Ratcliffe and Stephen Miller. Steve Witkoff and Kash Patel are also on the room but standing off to the side.
Eric Schmitt
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:37 a.m. ET
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee praised Maduro’s capture. “This arrest was the culmination of a monthslong effort by the Trump administration to degrade the narco-terrorist organizations that Maduro oversaw,” said Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of MIssissippi. He called on the administration for a briefing as soon as possible to hear from senior military and law enforcement leaders about the operation.
Tyler Pager
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:32 a.m. ET
Trump just posted a photo on Truth Social that he said is of Maduro aboard the U.S.S. Iwo Jima. The picture shows Maduro in a gray sweatshirt and sweatpants. He is blindfolded and handcuffed and has large headphones on.
Jack Nicas
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:27 a.m. ET
As President Trump prepares to speak about the U.S. military operation in Venezuela, there is quite a split screen with Venezuelan state television. The main government channel is broadcasting a pro-Venezuela rally in Cuba, where speakers are denouncing Trump as a dictator, with an all-caps chyron that says: “The empire kidnapped them. We want them back.”
The USS Iwo Jima docked in Ponce, Puerto Rico, last month.Eva Marie Uzcategui/Reuters
President Trump said that he and key members of his administration watched in real time from Mar-a-Lago, his Florida club, the Delta Force raid that captured Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president.
Ruth Igielnik
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:18 a.m. ET
Before this operation, Americans largely did not support the idea of U.S. military activity in Venezuela. Just 25 percent of voters nationally — and about half of Republicans — supported military action in Venezuela, according to a December poll from Quinnipiac University.
A mural of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela in the nation’s capital, Caracas. Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times
President Trump on Saturday announced the capture of the authoritarian leader of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, in a U.S. military operation that appeared to be the culmination of a campaign against Mr. Maduro by the president and other top American officials.
William Rashbaum
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:10 a.m. ET
The new indictment tracks President Nicolás Maduro’s rise through the ranks of the Venezuelan government, accusing him of committing the crimes charged in the indictment every step of the way. “Since his early days in Venezuelan government, Maduro Moros has tarnished every public office he has held,” the indictment charged, using Maduro’s full Spanish surname. “As a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Maduro Moros moved loads of cocaine under the protection of Venezuelan law enforcement.”
The indictment continues: “As Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maduro Moros provided Venezuelan diplomatic passports to drug traffickers and facilitated diplomatic cover for planes used by money launderers to repatriate drug proceeds from Mexico to Venezuela. As Venezuela’s President and now-de facto ruler, Maduro Moros allows cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish for his own benefit, for the benefit of members of his ruling regime, and for the benefit of his family members.”
Tyler Pager
Jan. 3, 2026, 11:03 a.m. ET
We are inside the Tea Room at Mar-a-Lago awaiting the president’s news conference.
Vice President JD Vance took to social media on Saturday to assert that the United States’ capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela was legal.Tom Brenner for The New York Times
Vice President JD Vance justified the U.S. operation that captured Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, as legal and necessary, praising it in a social media post on Saturday.
Farnaz Fassihi
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:54 a.m. ET
Venezuela’s mission to the U.N. has requested an emergency Security Council meeting and has asked the Council to condemn the U.S. military strikes against the country.
Venezuela’s ambassador, Samuel Reinaldo Moncada Acosta, said in a letter to the Council’s president: “The United States of America always uses lies to fabricate wars. It is an international tyranny imposed with the propaganda of death: the recent past confirms this.” Russia and China, allies of Venezuela and permanent members of the Council, have requested the Council convene an emergency meeting this weekend.
Emiliano Rodríguez Mega
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:47 a.m. ET
María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader, posted a statement on social media, calling for national unity following the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
“Given his refusal to accept a negotiated exit, the government of the United States has fulfilled its promise to enforce the law,” she wrote. “We have struggled for years, we have given it our all, and it has been worth it. What had to happen is happening.”
Machado added that Edmundo González, who the U.S. has recognized as Venezuela’s President-elect, must “immediately” take office and be recognized as the country’s commander of the armed forces.
“Today we are prepared to enforce our mandate and take power,” Machado said. “We are going to restore order, release the political prisoners, build an exceptional country, and bring our children back home.”
William Rashbaum
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:47 a.m. ET
A judge in the Southern District of New York has unsealed the new indictment against President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, which opens by saying that for 25 years the leaders of Venezuela have “abused their positions of public trust and corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import tons of cocaine into the United States.” The charges are the same as in the 2020 indictment, though there is more political rhetoric.
There are four counts in both indictments, including narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine and possession of machine guns, which, when combined with drug trafficking charges, carries a potentially lengthy prison sentence. Both indictments name six defendants, but the new one includes Maduro’s wife and son. It also names the minister of the interior, Diosado Cabello Rondon, who was charged before. It also adds two new defendants, while dropping three others who had been charged in 2020.
Senator Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of having “blatantly” lied to Congress about the administration’s goals in Venezuela.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York Times
While President Trump crowed on Saturday about the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela by U.S. authorities, Democrats in Congress sounded alarms about the legality of the action and raised questions about recent briefings in which administration officials assured them that they were not seeking regime change in the nation.
Julian E. Barnes
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:39 a.m. ET
The C.I.A. had a group of officers on the ground in Venezuela working clandestinely beginning in August, according to a person familiar with the agency’s work. The officers gathered information about Maduro’s “pattern of life” and movements that was important as the U.S. developed intelligence about his whereabouts and movements.
Anatoly Kurmanaev
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:31 a.m. ET
Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez is in Caracas, according to three people close to her. Rodríguez is next in line to assume power, according to Venezuelan constitution. She remains the ruling party’s choice to succeed Maduro, said a fourth person, a senior Venezuelan official. The United States has called Mr. Maduro’s government illegitimate, and it’s unclear if the White House would accept Rodríguez as president.
Emiliano Rodríguez Mega
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:30 a.m. ET
When asked on Fox News if the attack in Venezuela were intended as a warning to President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, Trump seemed to signal they might. “Well, it wasn’t meant to be,” he replied. “We’re very friendly with her, she’s a good woman. But the cartels are running Mexico — she’s not running Mexico.”
Trump said Sheinbaum had repeatedly declined his offers to intervene against the cartels. “I’ve asked her numerous times, ‘Would you like us to take out the cartels?’” he said, adding that “something is going to have to be done with Mexico.”
His comments came even after his own officials have lauded Mexico for an unprecedented surge in cooperation, citing a record number of cartel arrests and successful fentanyl seizures.
Luis Antonio Rojas for The New York Times
Jack Nicas
Jan. 3, 2026, 10:28 a.m. ET
In an interview with Venezuelan state television, Venezuela’s attorney general, Tarek William Saab, called on Venezuelans to take to the streets against the U.S. military action in the country. “We are going to show the world what we are made of,” he said. State television has been broadcasting footage of small pro-Maduro rallies on Saturday.
Saab also demanded the United States produce proof that Maduro is alive, and he called on international organizations to denounce Maduro’s capture. “Before the world, I ask the United Nations at this moment to speak out. Where are the international human rights organizations?” he said.
Vice President Delcy Rodríguez of Venezuela during an interview in Caracas, Venezuela, in September.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times
The United States captured Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. But Mr. Maduro’s inner circle appeared on Saturday morning to have survived the U.S. strikes on the country, though it was not immediately clear who was in power.
A crowd gathered in Doral, Fla., to celebrate the United States strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, President Nicolás Maduro, on Saturday.Patricia Mazzei/The New York Times
The party broke out before sunrise in the heavily Venezuelan city of Doral, Fla., west of Miami: Venezuelans and Venezuelan Americans blared music, honked car horns and danced to celebrate the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan leader.
President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela during a rally in Caracas, Venezuela, in December. The U.S. government had offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Mr. Maduro’s capture.Alejandro Cegarra for The New York Times
A C.I.A. source within the Venezuelan government monitored the location of Nicolás Maduro in both the days and moments before his capture by American special operation forces, according to people briefed on the operation.
President Nicolás Maduro, prosecutors say, is the head of the so-called Cartel de los Soles.Alejandro Cegarra for The New York Times
Nicolás Maduro, the captured president of Venezuela, is expected to face charges in the Southern District of New York, where prosecutors had targeted him for years, the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, said on Saturday.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
3) Trump Says He Watched Capture of Maduro in Real Time
President Trump said members of the Army’s Delta Force broke through the doors of a safe house “in a matter of seconds” after practicing the operation using a replica of the structure.
By Julian E. Barnes, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, Jan. 3, 2026
Julian E. Barnes and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington. Tyler Pager reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.
The USS Iwo Jima docked in Ponce, Puerto Rico, last month. Credit...Eva Marie Uzcategui/Reuters
President Trump said that he and key members of his administration watched in real time from Mar-a-Lago, his Florida club, the Delta Force raid that captured Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president.
In a lengthy telephone interview Saturday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Trump offered some details of the monthslong planning that went into the operation, including the construction of a replica of Mr. Maduro’s safe house, where special operations forces could practice the raid.
Mr. Trump said that the military repeatedly rehearsed the operation and was able to execute flawlessly, breaking through steel doors protecting Mr. Maduro in “a matter of seconds.”
“I watched it literally like you are watching a television show,” the president said. “It was an amazing thing.”
The capture operation was the product of months of meetings between Mr. Trump; Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as the national security adviser; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director; and Stephen Miller, one of Mr. Trump’s top aides. The men sometimes gathered as a group but also met or spoke with Mr. Trump one-on-one.
While Mr. Trump did not identify the military team that conducted the raid, other U.S. officials said it was the Army’s Delta Force. “They are the most highly trained soldiers in the world,” the president said.
No U.S. troops were killed in the operation, Mr. Trump said. But he added that he thought some were hurt when their helicopter was hit. The helicopter, which was damaged, the president said, flew out of Venezuela to safety. Two U.S. officials said that about half a dozen soldiers were injured in the overall operation.
The president provided few specifics of the military operations beyond the raid that captured Mr. Maduro, but noted that the United States had put different kinds of fighter planes into the skies above Venezuela.
Mr. Trump said he vetoed a deal with Mr. Maduro to head off the raid. Mr. Maduro had been offering the United States access to Venezuelan oil, but Mr. Trump said he was unwilling to make an agreement because of Mr. Maduro’s involvement in the narcotics trade.
“What he did with drugs is bad,” Mr. Trump said, adding, as he often does, that Venezuela had emptied its prisons and sent people to the United States.
Mr. Trump said on Fox News that Mr. Maduro and his wife had been taken to the U.S.S. Iwo Jima, one of the American warships that have been prowling the Caribbean. He said Mr. Maduro would be taken to New York, where a new indictment was issued.
Mr. Trump suggested that his administration would continue to target Venezuelan government officials if they sided with Mr. Maduro.
“If they stay loyal, the future is really bad, really bad for them,” he said. “I’d say most of them have converted.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
4) Trump Plunges the U.S. Into a New Era of Risk in Venezuela
President Trump opened a new chapter in American nation building as he declared that the United States had toppled Venezuela’s leader and would “run” the country for an indefinite period.
By David E. Sanger and Tyler Pager, Published Jan. 3, 2026, Updated Jan. 4, 2026
David E. Sanger and Tyler Pager are White House correspondents.
“Mr. Trump was unapologetic about taking that step, and in his justification, he showed he had given much thought to the oil industry. ‘Venezuela unilaterally seized and sold American oil, American assets and American platforms, costing us billions and billions of dollars,’ he said of resources that were being pumped out of Venezuelan bedrock. ‘They did this a while ago, but we never had a president that did anything about it. They took all of our property.’ He added: ‘The socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations, and they stole it through force.’ Now, he made clear, he was taking it back, and Americans would be compensated before Venezuelans became, he predicted, ‘rich.’”
People in Doral, Fla., celebrating the capture of President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces on Saturday. Scott McIntyre for The New York Times
President Trump’s declaration on Saturday that the United States planned to “run” Venezuela for an unspecified period, issuing orders to its government and exploiting its vast oil reserves, plunged the United States into a risky new era in which it will seek economic and political dominance over a nation of roughly 30 million people.
Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago private club just hours after Nicolás Maduro, the leader of Venezuela, and his wife were seized from their bedroom by U.S. forces, Mr. Trump told reporters that Delcy Rodríguez, who served as Mr. Maduro’s vice president, would hold power in Venezuela as long as she “does what we want.”
Ms. Rodríguez, however, showed little public interest in doing the Americans’ bidding. In a national address, she accused Washington of invading her country under false pretenses and asserted that Mr. Maduro was still Venezuela’s head of state. “What is being done to Venezuela is a barbarity,” she said.
Mr. Trump and his top national security advisers carefully avoided describing their plans for Venezuela as an occupation, akin to what the United States did after defeating Japan, or toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Instead, they vaguely sketched out an arrangement similar to a guardianship: The United States will provide a vision for how Venezuela should be run and will expect the interim government to carry that out in a transition period, under the threat of further military intervention.
Even after Ms. Rodríguez contradicted Mr. Trump, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser, said he was withholding judgment.
“We’re going to make decisions based on their actions and their deeds in the days and weeks to come,” he said in an interview with The New York Times. “We think they’re going to have some unique and historic opportunities to do a great service for the country, and we hope that they’ll accept that opportunity.”
Mr. Trump suggested on Saturday that while there were no American troops on the ground now, there would be a “second wave” of military action if the United States ran into resistance, either on the ground or from Venezuelan government officials.
“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Mr. Trump said. Asked who, exactly, would be running Venezuela, he said “people that are standing right behind me, we’re going to be running it,” pointing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine.
Mr. Trump paired that with a declaration that a key American goal was to regain access to oil rights that he has repeatedly said had been “stolen” from the United States. With those statements, the president opened a new chapter in American nation building.
It is one in which he hopes to influence every major political decision in Venezuela by the presence of an armada just offshore, and perhaps to intimidate others in the region. He repeated a warning to the president of Colombia, another country targeted by the administration for its role in drug trafficking, to “watch his ass.”
Mr. Trump’s actions on Saturday cast America back to a past era of gunboat diplomacy, when the United States used its military to grab territory and resources for its own benefit.
A year ago this week, he openly mused, also at Mar-a-Lago, about making Canada, Greenland and Panama parts of the United States. Now, after hanging in the White House a portrait of William McKinley, the tariff-loving president who presided over the military seizure of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, Mr. Trump said it was well within the rights of the United States to wrest from Venezuela resources that he believes had been wrongly taken from the hands of American corporations.
The U.S. operation, in seeking to assert control over a vast Latin American nation, has little precedent in recent decades, recalling the imperial U.S. military efforts of the 19th and early 20th centuries in Mexico, Nicaragua and other countries.
Mr. Trump and his aides claimed they had a legal basis for the immediate action he ordered on Friday, the extraterritorial rendition of Mr. Maduro. An indictment that dates to 2020 charged the Venezuelan leader with a series of acts related to drug trafficking. A refreshed indictment was published Saturday, one that included Mr. Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores.
But that indictment only deals with Mr. Maduro’s alleged crimes. It did not provide a legal basis for taking control of the country, as the U.S. president declared he was doing.
Mr. Trump was unapologetic about taking that step, and in his justification, he showed he had given much thought to the oil industry.
“Venezuela unilaterally seized and sold American oil, American assets and American platforms, costing us billions and billions of dollars,” he said of resources that were being pumped out of Venezuelan bedrock. “They did this a while ago, but we never had a president that did anything about it. They took all of our property.” He added: “The socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations, and they stole it through force.”
Now, he made clear, he was taking it back, and Americans would be compensated before Venezuelans became, he predicted, “rich.”
But that left many open questions. Will the United States need an occupying military force to protect the oil sector while the Americans and others rebuild it? Will the United States run the courts, and determine who pumps the oil?
Will it install a pliant government for some number of years, and what happens if a legitimate, democratic election is won by Venezuelans with a different vision for their country?
All of these questions, of course, could enmesh the United States into exactly the kind of “forever wars” which Mr. Trump’s MAGA base has warned against.
When pressed on that point, Mr. Trump dismissed it. He noted that he had been successful in killing the leader of the Iranian Quds force, Gen. Qassim Suleimani, in January 2020. He cited the success for his attack on Iran’s major nuclear sites, burying its uranium stockpile.
But those were largely one-and-done attacks. They did not involve running a foreign nation, or dealing with the resistance that almost always accompanies an effort like that.
For much of the 20th century, the United States intervened militarily in smaller countries in the Caribbean and Central America. But Venezuela is twice the size of Iraq, with challenges that may prove just as complex.
“Any democratic transition will require the buy-in of pro-regime and anti-regime elements,” John Polga-Hecimovich, a Venezuela scholar at the U.S. Naval Academy, said in an interview.
One crucial test, he said, is how the Venezuelan armed forces react. “If it splinters, with some backing a transition and others not, things could get violent,” he said. “On the other hand, a unified force would help legitimize whatever government comes next."
Simon Romero contributed reporting from São Paulo, Brazil.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
5) Trump Long Wanted to ‘Take the Oil.’ He Says He’ll Do It in Venezuela.
The White House had pointed to drug trafficking and migration as reasons to crack down on Nicolás Maduro. But oil emerged as central to President Trump.
By Anton Troianovski, Reporting from Washington, Published Jan. 3, 2026, Updated Jan. 4, 2026
Workers of the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA in September. There was little immediate clarity on Saturday as to how the White House envisions the United States profiting from Venezuela’s oil. Credit...Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
While he was out of office, President Trump mused about what would have happened if the United States had taken control of Venezuela.
“We would have gotten all that oil,” he said in a speech at the North Carolina Republican Convention in 2023. “It would have been right next door.”
On Saturday, Mr. Trump made it clear that he now intends to follow through.
In the last year, as the Trump administration built up pressure against Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, the president and his top aides said that the aggressive U.S. actions were necessary to curb drugs and migration from that country. But on Saturday, as Mr. Trump discussed the predawn attack on Venezuela that led to the capture of its leader, it was evident that the president’s longtime fixation on oil was a driving factor in his decision to greenlight the mission.
“We’re going to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he celebrated the seizure of Mr. Maduro, promising that American companies would be able to tap more of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The money made, he said, would go not only to the people of Venezuela, but also to American oil companies and “to the United States of America in the form of reimbursement for the damages caused us by that country.”
There was little immediate clarity as to how the White House envisions the United States profiting from Venezuela’s oil. Analysts warn that large increases to the country’s oil production could take years and tens of billions of dollars in spending. But Mr. Trump indicated that the country’s oil wealth was a key factor not only in his decision to attack, but also in pledging that the United States would “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future.
“It won’t cost us anything because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial,” Mr. Trump said, adding that “we’re going to get reimbursed for everything that we spend.”
Venezuela has about 17 percent of the world’s known oil reserves, or more than 300 billion barrels, more than any other country. But its production is only about 1 percent of the world total.
Before Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976, American companies like Exxon, Mobil and Gulf Oil were major players. The country reopened its oil industry to foreign drillers in the 1990s, but Hugo Chávez, Mr. Maduro’s predecessor, began another phase of nationalization in 2007. U.S. oil giants like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips claimed they were owed billions of dollars in compensation because their operations were seized.
That history feeds the Trump administration’s contention that Venezuela stole oil from the United States — an argument that the White House increasingly made in the weeks leading up to Saturday’s attack. Stephen Miller, the senior Trump adviser central to the president’s immigration crackdown, posted on social media last month that “American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela.”
“If you remember, they took all of our energy rights; they took all of our oil from not that long ago,” Mr. Trump said last month. “And we want it back.”
Laying claim to other countries’ oil has long been a fixture in Mr. Trump’s rhetoric.
“I’ve been saying it for years. Take the oil,” he told The New York Times in 2016, when asked how his strategy to fight the Islamic State in the Middle East would differ from President Barack Obama’s approach.
As the Trump administration increased its pressure on Mr. Maduro during the last year, oil was not initially central to its public rationale. Instead, the White House focused on claims that Mr. Maduro had directed drug trafficking and gang members who migrated to the United States — some of which have been disputed by Mr. Trump’s own intelligence agencies. When Mr. Trump said in March that he would impose tariffs on countries that buy Venezuelan oil, he said he was doing it because, he claimed, Venezuela had “purposefully and deceitfully” sent “murderers and people of a very violent nature” to the United States.
But behind the scenes, as The Times reported last month, the future of Venezuela’s oil was central to Mr. Trump’s deliberations as early as last spring. The White House saw the pressure campaign against Venezuela as a way to combine three separate policy goals: crippling Mr. Maduro, using military force against drug cartels and securing access to Venezuela’s oil reserves for U.S. companies.
Chevron has in recent years been the only U.S. oil company operating in Venezuela, thanks to permission from the governments of both countries to produce and export oil there. Chevron’s activities played into the White House deliberations, as the company lobbied the White House for an extension of the Biden-era license that allowed it to expand its operations in Venezuela, as The Times previously reported.
However, on Saturday, Chevron was circumspect, even after Mr. Trump said that U.S. companies would soon spend “billions of dollars” on Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.
The company initially sent reporters a statement saying it was “prepared to work constructively with the U.S. government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen U.S. energy security.” It later said the statement was incorrect and issued a new one that removed mention of the U.S. government.
“Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,” the company said. “We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations.”
Ivan Penn contributed reporting from Los Angeles.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
6) Trump Finally Told Americans What This Was All About
By W.J. Hennigan, Jan. 4, 2026
Mr. Hennigan writes about national security issues for Opinion from Washington.
“Mr. Trump’s willingness to use the U.S. military in legally dubious and audacious ways has become a running theme of his second term. The self-proclaimed peace president is showing that American warfare, once contemplated and debated, is now an almost daily expectation. Since returning to the White House not quite a year ago, Mr. Trump has authorized U.S. forces to launch airstrikes or night raids across Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and now Venezuela.”
The New York Times
Over the past four months, President Trump and his cabinet members offered a meandering list of vague and at times conflicting explanations why the administration was amassing warships, attack planes and thousands of military personnel off the coast of Venezuela.
It was about drug smuggling (despite the fact that little cocaine and virtually no fentanyl comes from that country to ours). It was about President Nicolás Maduro’s attempts to destabilize the United States by flooding the southern border with freed prisoners and mental patients (a claim made without evidence). It was about how Venezuela stole oil and land from American businesses (though that’s not entirely true, either).
Now Mr. Trump appears to have come clean. In the wake of Saturday’s predawn military operation in Venezuela, in which Mr. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured and flown to a U.S. warship, Mr. Trump made clear that it was essentially about the oil all along.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” he said at a news conference later on Saturday morning.
The president spoke at length about securing American industry access to Venezuela’s oil fields, which account for roughly 17 percent of the world’s known reserves. A sustained U.S. military presence will be required, he indicated, for the foreseeable future. How many troops will be needed and for how long is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, the United States expects to run the Venezuelan government “until such time that we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s willingness to use the U.S. military in legally dubious and audacious ways has become a running theme of his second term. The self-proclaimed peace president is showing that American warfare, once contemplated and debated, is now an almost daily expectation. Since returning to the White House not quite a year ago, Mr. Trump has authorized U.S. forces to launch airstrikes or night raids across Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and now Venezuela.
The United States has not formally declared war on these countries, which is why many Americans might wonder why our troops are engaged in operations there. Mr. Trump, after all, campaigned on promises to keep the U.S. military out of such foreign interventions. But looked at another way, his actions are a continuation of something that’s long been happening: For a quarter century the global war on terror has habituated Americans to their presidents authorizing lethal military operations in countries many of them would struggle to find on a map.
Mr. Trump labeled Mr. Maduro a “narco-terrorist,” along with the alleged criminal group the Trump administration says he leads. It’s the language the administration needed to establish political and legal cover to topple a leader for whom it lacked compelling evidence of posing a direct security threat to the United States, though Mr. Maduro has led a repressive regime for more than a decade. While U.S. administrations since Sept. 11, 2001, have stretched executive powers over the military under the banner of maintaining national security, they did so while generally keeping Congress apprised of the missions underway.
Now we’re watching a president seem to unilaterally decide on regime change. It is illegal, it is antithetical to the democratic process, and it’s another example of Mr. Trump misleading the American people about his true intentions.
Leading up to Saturday’s attack, Mr. Trump’s team framed the buildup of U.S. military activities in the Caribbean, including strikes on some 30 boats that have killed at least 110 people, as a limited effort to counter Venezuela’s drug smuggling. Saturday’s operation, which involved months of planning and highly orchestrated execution, resulted in Mr. Maduro and Ms. Flores making their way to the United States aboard a naval ship. Both have been indicted in federal court and are expected to appear before a U.S. District Court judge in New York City.
Mr. Trump said that Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim president, would act as a partner in allowing the United States to run her country, though she later declared that Mr. Maduro was the nation’s “only president.” America, of course, has an abysmal track record in helping run other countries; its forays into nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were all spectacular failures. Ms. Rodríguez’s comments make clear that Mr. Trump is without a detailed road map for how to prevent the same thing from happening in Venezuela.
But let’s set all that lack of planning aside and recognize the audacity of what’s just occurred: The president has enlisted the United States in an open-ended obligation to govern a foreign country with the stated goal of exploiting its sizable oil infrastructure for America’s economic gain, and perhaps for the Venezuelan people.
In the past, American presidents have tried to perfect the art of preparing the nation for war. This typically has entailed a few months of speeches, international trips to build a military coalition and high-profile offers giving adversaries a way out, short of armed conflict. All of this is done in hopes that the American public and Congress alike will understand and appreciate why conflict — never anyone’s first choice — is necessary to advance the United States’ interests.
Little of that well practiced routine was on display ahead of the Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela. The president muddled what his policy goals were as he amassed a wide range of forces in the region. He refused to seek congressional approval for his actions, possibly because some Republicans didn’t agree with them. He didn’t even privately notify Congress in advance of U.S. forces’ capture of Mr. Maduro and Ms. Flores.
At every turn, Mr. Trump has demonstrated his unwillingness to concede Congress’s constitutional right to declare war. Last year Republicans blocked a bipartisan Senate resolution that would have legally prevented Mr. Trump from engaging in direct conflict with Venezuela. This was a mistake. Republicans and Democrats must reassert this authority before he acts again unilaterally in the growing list of places he’s already threatened — including Mexico, Panama, Canada and Greenland. Americans must not continually find themselves embroiled in conflicts for reasons they barely understand.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
7) Iran’s Dual Challenge: Unrest at Home, Threat of Strikes From Abroad
Officials said that leaders were in survival mode amid anti-government protests and the prospect of again coming into the cross hairs of Israel and the United States.
By Farnaz Fassihi, Jan. 4, 2026
Farnaz Fassihi has covered Iran for three decades and has lived and traveled extensively in the country.
A photograph released by Iranian state media showing protesters in Tehran, Iran’s capital, on Monday. The demonstrations have convulsed Iran for a week. Fars News Agency, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Iran’s government has in recent years weathered wave upon wave of nationwide protests challenging its rule by resorting to force. But for the first time, the country’s rulers face a more complex challenge: growing domestic unrest combined with an external military threat.
The government appears at a dead end in addressing both, with no clear strategy for reversing the economic collapse fueling protests, nor any signs that Iran’s leaders are willing to make the concessions on their nuclear program sufficient to appease Israel and the United States and ward off the risk of another round of strikes.
The protests have convulsed Iran for a week. Though they have not reached the size and scope of the last two major uprisings — one in 2022 led by women and another in 2019 set off by gasoline prices — they have rattled senior officials and drawn a prompt reaction from the United States and Israel.
President Trump threatened to intervene, saying in a social media post on Friday that if Iran killed “peaceful protesters,” the United States would come to their aid, adding, “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”
The Israeli foreign minister and several government officials have spoken out on behalf of the protesters. Gila Gamliel, Israel’s minister of innovation, science and technology, said in a video posted on social media on Thursday, “Israel is with you, and we support you in every way possible.”
On Saturday, the U.S. military attacked Venezuela, one of Iran’s closest allies, and captured the Venezuelan leader, Nicolás Maduro. At a news conference where Mr. Trump said that Washington planned to run the South American country for the immediate future, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that other countries should take note.
Iran’s leaders and political figures have sounded rattled and shocked. The ramifications for Tehran cannot be overstated.
Ali Gholhaki, a hard-line pundit in Iran, said in a phone interview that the dire state of the economy had played a central role in the downfall of the leaders in both Venezuela and Syria, creating a maelstrom of public discontent and dispirited security forces. “The lesson for Iran is that we must be extremely careful that the same scenario does not happen here,” Mr. Gholhaki said. “When the anti-riot police, security forces and the military are struggling for their livelihood, the defense lines collapse.”
On Friday, after Mr. Trump made his threat to strike Iran, the country’s Supreme National Security Council, the body in charge of internal and external security, held a late-night emergency meeting to discuss how to contain the protests with less violence to avoid fueling public anger. They also wanted to prepare for the possibility of military strikes, according to three Iranian officials familiar with government deliberations who asked not be named because they were discussing sensitive issues.
The three officials said that as the protests raged, senior officials in private meetings and conversations had acknowledged that the Islamic Republic had been thrust into survival mode. Officials appear to have few tools at their disposal to deal with either the pressing challenges of a tanking economy fueling unrest or the threat of further conflict with Israel and the United States. President Masoud Pezeshkian has repeatedly said as much publicly in recent weeks, at one point announcing that he had “no ideas” for solving Iran’s many problems.
“Any policy in the society that is unjust is doomed to fail,” Mr. Pezeshkian said in a speech on Thursday, his first public address since the protests began. “Accept that we must listen to the people.”
Things the government has done so far to address the nation’s economic woes, such as replacing the governor of the central bank and announcing changes to the currency policy, have accomplished little. Really fixing the economy would require major policy changes that would result in a nuclear deal with Washington to lift sanctions, and a crackdown on corruption. Iran’s government appears either incapable of such steps or unwilling to take them.
Analysts say that the country’s woes are intertwined. The economy was seriously damaged by American sanctions on oil sales and international banking transactions, imposed in 2018 when Mr. Trump exited the nuclear deal with Tehran. After the U.N. Security Council brought back sanctions in September, the Iranian currency plunged further. Rampant corruption and mismanagement have also played a role.
Adding to Iran’s troubles is the continuing conflict with Israel. Israel has carried out assassinations and explosions targeting nuclear and military structures, while Iran has armed and financed militant groups in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.
Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran in June, setting off a 12-day conflict that culminated with the United States bombing and heavily damaging Iran’s nuclear facilities. This past week, the three officials familiar with government talks said, concern had been rising that if domestic instability continued, Israel would see an opening to strike again. The remarks by Mr. Trump and Israeli officials added to those fears, the officials added.
Mr. Pezeshkian held two emergency meetings with his economic advisory committee last week, asking for guidance and for written talking points if the crises deepen, according to two officials familiar with the details of the meeting who, like some others interviewed for this article, requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Some advisers, they said, suggested that Mr. Pezeshkian should deflect blame in public speeches and point to Iran’s dual-power structure, in which key decisions are made by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
On Saturday, Ayatollah Khamenei took a harder line than the president, saying in a public speech that “rioters must be put in their place” and blaming foreign enemies for the devaluation of Iran’s currency and other economic problems. He did, though, acknowledge that merchants in Tehran’s bazaar had a right to protest against fluctuating prices.
The current round of unrest started this past week with those merchants shuttering their shops in protest. As the strikes spread to other cities, the government announced a four-day nationwide holiday ending Sunday to try to contain the situation. On Sunday, the majority of the shops in Tehran’s bazaar remained closed, and there were reports of scattered protests and heavy presence of anti-riot police, according to videos on social media and Iranian media reports.
In the past few days, the unrest has turned into riots in many places, with young men attacking government buildings, clashing with security forces and setting on fire cars, motorcycles and trash cans, according to videos posted on social media, Iranian media outlets, and the BBC Persian service.
Security forces have beaten protesters and used tear gas, and in some videos from cities in western Iran, gunshots can be heard. At least eight protesters and two security agents have been killed, according to official media reports, rights groups and video footage of funerals.
Mehdi Rahmati, an Iranian analyst who advises officials on regional strategy, said in an interview, “Unfortunately, I think the government has no understanding or strategy for the domestic situation and international pressures building up.”
“There is no denying that there is raw anger,” he added. “One theory is they are letting the protesters vent their anger because we are at an explosion point.”
The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, privately met with some heads of government-affiliated media organizations on Thursday and called the brewing crisis a fight for the survival of the Islamic Republic’s rule and for the nation, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Mr. Araghchi told the media representatives that the prospects of negotiations with Washington were currently nonexistent and that decisions about whether to engage with Washington were not up to him, the two people said.
For a week, crowds have taken to the streets to vent anger at the government and to call for the end of Islamic clerical rule. The protests have mostly been in smaller towns and in poorer areas, and on university campuses, where people were chanting “Death to Khamenei” and “Freedom, freedom.” Some also made a broad denunciation of authoritarian rule, chanting “Death to the oppressor, whether king or supreme leader,” activists and residents inside Iran said.
But in Tehran, with the exception of the bazaar downtown, the university campus, and a few working-class neighborhoods, the city seemed normal, residents said in interviews and videos on social media suggested. Ski resorts north of Tehran were packed with affluent day trippers.
The current protests are not as large in scope and size as the uprising in 2022. The unrest at that time coalesced around a progressive women’s rights movement for ending the mandatory hijab rule, and it lasted for several months. But the demonstrations this time could still spread and turn more violent.
Fars, a news agency affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards Corps, said on Saturday that in western provinces some riots had taken the shape of “organized cells,” and “semi-militant” attacks. In one such province, Ilam, the agency reported that the agitators had guns, heavy weaponry and hand grenades. Videos on social media and Iranian media showed a crowd there wearing masks and firingassault rifles into the air while chanting, “Death to Khamenei.”
In a joint statement, 17 Iranian pro-democracy activists, including the jailed Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi and the film directors Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof, called on security forces to refrain from attacking protesters.
“The only path to saving Iran is a transition away from the Islamic Republic — a demand that is neither temporary nor suppressible,” the statement said.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
8) After Venezuela, Trump Says Cuba Is ‘Ready to Fall’
The capture of Nicolás Maduro is a devastating blow to the alliance between Venezuela and Cuba. Many wonder if the island nation will be targeted next.
By Maria Abi-Habib, Reporting from Mexico City, Jan. 5, 2026
People rally in solidarity with Venezuela in Havana, Cuba, after the United States captured Nicolas Maduro on Saturday. Credit...Ramon Espinosa/Associated Press
Shortly after U.S. forces captured Venezuela’s leader, President Trump said that Cuba’s days were numbered and that his administration may turn its sights on the Communist island next.
“Cuba looks like it is ready to fall,” Mr. Trump said to reporters on Air Force One. “I don’t know if they’re going to hold out, but Cuba now has no income. They got all their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil.”
Pressed about the prospect of the United States’ intervening militarily in Cuba, Mr. Trump said he did not think it was necessary because “it looks like it’s going down.”
Whether Washington does move against Cuba remains to be seen. President Trump has surrounded himself with Cuba hawks, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American who as a U.S. senator was famous for his longstanding antipathy toward Havana. Mr. Rubio has long signaled his belief that a change in Venezuela’s government would weaken Cuba, which he has said would be a welcome outcome.
The Cuban government finds itself in a precarious situation with the capture of Mr. Maduro, a crucial political and economic partner, as it faces an economic crisis at home and growing political dissatisfaction.
The nations were so close that nearly three dozen Cubans were killed on Saturday when U.S. forces invaded Caracas. Mr. Maduro leaned heavily on Cuban bodyguards for his protection in recent weeks as Mr. Trump ramped up threats.
Washington may not have to do much to foster political change in Cuba. The ongoing U.S. blockade of Venezuelan oil is cutting off an economic lifeline for the island, which it used to keep the lights on domestically and sold on international markets in exchange for hard currency to buy staples like medicine and food.
On Sunday, Havana swiftly responded with concern.
Mr. Maduro’s overthrow “places us in a critical existential dilemma for our survival as nation states and independent, sovereign nations,” Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Cuba’s foreign minister, said Sunday at an emergency meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, a bloc of regional nations. He appealed to neighboring countries to stand together in the face of Washington’s threats.
“It’s a death sentence if tomorrow Venezuela shuts off oil to Cuba,” said Jorge Piñon, a former Mexican oil executive and Cuban energy expert who works at the University of Texas at Austin.
Venezuela and Cuba have had a 25-year political and economic partnership, which has long eclipsed Havana’s reliance on Moscow or Beijing. When Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, he ushered in a socialist revolution seeking to empower millions of poor, disenfranchised Venezuelans, much like Fidel Castro had done for Cuba.
Mr. Castro personally intervened to provide protection to Mr. Chávez during a 2002 coup attempt against him, according to former U.S. diplomats. The Venezuelan leader repaid his gratitude by propping up Cuba financially, providing an economic lifeline in the form of oil, a policy continued by Mr. Maduro.
In the fourth quarter of 2025, on average Cuba received 35,000 barrels a day of oil from Venezuela, and about 7,000 barrels each from Mexico and Russia, according to Mr. Piñon. He analyzes satellite images of oil vessels docking in Cuba for his estimates, as the governments involved do not release such data.
Mexico was sending about 22,000 barrels a day to Cuba last year, but that figure dropped to 7,000 after Mr. Rubio visited Mexico in August to press the Mexican government on a host of bilateral issues, Mr. Piñon said.
It is unclear whether Mexico cut oil shipments to Cuba because of political pressure from Washington or because of its own declining crude oil production. Since the start of his administration, Mr. Trump has threatened Mexico with unilateral military action against drug cartels if the country did not cooperate on a host of issues, including trade and reducing the amount of fentanyl crossing the border.
Republicans, specifically, have for years demanded Mexico cut oil shipments to Cuba.
“There’s a belief among Republicans like Rubio that once Venezuelan oil is cut off, the Cuban economy will collapse and trigger a popular uprising,” said Ricardo Zúñiga, a former U.S. official who helped broker former President Barack Obama’s deal with Cuba and who also served under Mr. Trump. “What we’ve seen in Cuba is there appears to be no limit to how bad the situation can get, without an uprising.”
What may save Cuba from U.S. intervention is that it has nothing to offer Washington economically, analysts say. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves — which Mr. Trump has brought up repeatedly. Cuba has few resources.
And Cuba is only 90 miles away from the coast of the United States. If it collapses, it could trigger more migration into the United States and security concerns.
“If Rubio or others are gunning for a ‘Cuba next’ approach here, it will be harder for them to make the case to Trump,” said Michael Bustamante, a Cuba expert and an associate professor at the University of Miami.
Already, citizens line up for hours or even days to get the most basic items like cooking fuel or milk and endure rolling electricity blackouts that spoil what little food they do have when their refrigerators shut off. The medical system — a gold lining of the revolution — is now barely able to provide the most basic care. Patients and their families report shortages of medicine and people are now expected to bring their own sheets to the hospital, according to Cubans in the U.S. who have sent money to help family members.
The situation has prompted a mass migration of Cubans: the island has lost 10 percent of its population, or 1 million people, since 2021. Part of the downward spiral is because of sanctions imposed by the United States, but analysts say a larger culprit is poor economic management by the Cuban government.
Still, the idea of American intervention in Cuba is deeply unpopular, even for Cubans who may want change.
“We don’t like to be bullied and we don’t like it from people like Rubio,” said Carlos Alzugaray Treto, who served Mr. Castro’s government as a Cuban diplomat until retiring in 1996. “Most people here want change, but they want change here, not imposed from outside.”
Mr. Alzugaray, who is now a reformer in favor of opening up Cuba, said the changes in Venezuela will affect Cuba “very much. But this is an opportunity for the Cuban government to reform.”
Mr. Bustamante, like Mr. Piñon, said that for now Washington may have its hands too full with Venezuela to tackle Cuba. They both added that there is no natural partner for Washington to ally with in Havana, as it has in Caracas — with Mr. Maduro’s vice president who is seen as a pragmatist, inviting the United States to work with her government on Sunday night.
“Rubio’s intentions have always been clear. But he’ll have to answer: Who can they cut a deal with? And the answer is no one,” Mr. Bustamante said. “Cuba is much more a one-party state in a way that Venezuela never was.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
9) After Venezuela, Trump Offers Hints About What Could Be Next
President Trump’s comments about Greenland, Colombia and Cuba offered a glimpse of how emboldened he feels after the quick capture of Nicolás Maduro.
By David E. Sanger, Jan. 5, 2026
David E. Sanger covers the White House and national security, and writes often on the revival of superpower conflict.
“Yet despite Mr. Trump’s constant search for a good deal, the daunting price tags do not seem to matter much to him. Venezuela, Greenland, Gaza, maybe Canada: These are legacies that will, over time, pay for themselves, he believes.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/politics/trump-venezuela-monroe-doctrine.html
By declaring the hemisphere off limits to outsiders seeking its oil riches, President Trump is looking to guarantee that only U.S. companies will be able to exploit Venezuela’s vast reserves. Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
Barely 48 hours after toppling the leader of Venezuela and asserting U.S. rights to the country’s oil, President Trump threatened Colombia with a similar fate, declared that Cuba was not worth invading because “it’s ready to fall,” and once again claimed that Greenland needed to come under American control as an issue of national security.
Mr. Trump’s claims, in interviews on Sunday and then a lengthy back-and-forth with reporters aboard Air Force One as it returned from his private club in Florida, offered a glimpse of how emboldened he felt after the quick capture of Nicolás Maduro, the strongman who was seized on narco-trafficking charges.
“We’re in charge” of Venezuela, Mr. Trump claimed, as he described his plans to breathe new life into the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 foundational statement of U.S. claims over the Western Hemisphere.
Or, more specifically, he invoked a more recent update that he refers to, characteristically, after himself: the “Donroe doctrine.”
Mr. Trump never described his philosophy in detail, or whether it applied beyond the Saturday attack on Caracas. But he certainly suggested that he could use the forces amassed in the Caribbean for new purposes, this time aimed at Colombia and its president, Gustavo Petro.
The country, he claimed, was “run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.”
“He’s not going to be doing it for very long,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “He has cocaine mills and cocaine factories. He’s not going to be doing it.” Asked whether the United States would conduct an operation against Colombia, the president said: “It sounds good to me.”
It may have been an empty threat, an effort to use the swift precision of the snatching of Mr. Maduro from his well-protected bedroom to bring Mr. Petro to heel. But the core of Mr. Trump’s argument was about American power, and what the Maduro operation said about his willingness to use it.
“American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he announced the Venezuela attack from Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida.
Mr. Trump talks in blunt declarations, which is why his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, spent much of Sunday gently walking back his boss’s declaration — which he had repeated multiple times — that the United States planned to “run” Venezuela for the foreseeable future. But a more nuanced position about the U.S. role in the Western Hemisphere is described on page 15 of the Trump administration’s recent National Security Strategy, a document that appears to have been written with this moment in American territorial adventurism in mind.
A close reading could point to what Mr. Trump is thinking about beyond Venezuela — from Colombia to Mexico to Cuba and Greenland, the ice-covered territory that Mr. Trump asserted again over the weekend must come under some form of U.S. control.
“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal,” said Mr. Trump, who keeps a pensive portrait of the fifth U.S. president near his desk in the Oval Office, squeezed between Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Jackson. “But we’ve superseded it by a lot, a real lot.”
He appeared to be referring to what the National Security Strategy called the “Trump Corollary” of Monroe’s famous declaration that sought to stop European powers from meddling in the Americas.
The Trump Corollary asserts a U.S. right to “restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere” and to deny “non-Hemispheric competitors” — namely, China — “the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets.”
That last phrase, about taking command of “strategically vital assets,” has echoes of Mr. Trump’s explanation for why the United States is claiming rights to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest in the world. He referred to oil roughly 20 times in his remarks on Saturday, talking about the need to rebuild long-neglected facilities, control production and provide remedies for U.S. companies, because Venezuela’s leaders “stole our oil.”
“We built that whole industry there, and they just took it over like we were nothing,” Mr. Trump said of the oil sector.
“And we had a president that decided not to do anything about it,” Mr. Trump added, appearing to refer to his predecessor, Joseph R. Biden Jr. “So we did something about it. We’re late, but we did something about it.”
As Richard Haass, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former national security and State Department official, put it: “This is the unvarnished essence of the Trump doctrine.”
It does fall far short of a global strategy. Mr. Trump has not said whether, if he claims the Western Hemisphere, China is free to do the same in Asia. But by declaring the hemisphere off limits to outsiders seeking its oil riches, Mr. Trump is looking to guarantee that only U.S. companies — some owned or operated by his supporters — will be able to exploit Venezuela’s vast reserves. (He did say, in response to a question from a reporter, that he expected to keep selling Venezuelan oil to China, which imports between half and three-quarters of the country’s paltry output.)
Mr. Trump’s intense focus on using Mr. Maduro’s overthrow to claim U.S. sovereignty over the oil reserve was predictable for a transaction-based presidency. But it was also revealing because he never once discussed promoting and restoring democracy in Venezuela as an American objective, even though the country had a decades-long tradition of democratic practices and freely conducted elections, until Hugo Chavez took power in 1999.
That omission was hardly a surprise: Even though the promotion of democracy was a staple of the national security strategies of Democratic and Republican presidents, including during Mr. Trump’s first term, it was largely missing from the November White House document.
And as Mr. Trump mused about a post-Maduro government, he notably did not call for the installation of Edmundo González as president, even though the United States, and other nations, recognized him as the legitimate winner of the 2024 election that Mr. Maduro falsely claimed to have won. Mr. González, now 76, was the proxy presidential candidate for the more popular opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who was barred from running.
“The omission causes an immediate problem for the political legitimacy of the Venezuelan government,” Richard Fontaine, the chief executive of the Center for a New American Security and a former aide to Senator John McCain, said over the weekend. “Many would-be supporters of the U.S. operation hoped for freedom, not just a different approach on drugs and oil.”
But, he added, “the restoration of democracy in Venezuela is not obviously among them.”
Mr. Trump seems perfectly happy to deal with the remnants of the Maduro government, as long as it follows his commands and gives him access to the oil — and compensation for nationalizing the assets of U.S. firms. That is a very different nation-building mission than, say, the types that George W. Bush pursued in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Bush claimed, at least, that he was creating models of democracy in the Middle East. Mr. Trump is claiming nothing more than transactional rights to Venezuela’s underground riches.
While Mr. Trump and his allies are eager to revitalize the Monroe Doctrine, its intent two centuries ago was far different from the situation the United States faces today.
When the original doctrine was declared by Monroe, a friend and neighbor of Thomas Jefferson’s, the United States was a nation of roughly 10 million people. Its Navy was limited to a few dozen ships, manned by about 3,500 sailors and 500 officers — roughly a fifth of the size of the force the Pentagon massed offshore of Venezuela to oust Mr. Maduro.
And the context was entirely different, too. Latin American countries were shaking off their distant masters, Spain and Portugal. Monroe and his political allies were worried that the European powers would seek to make them colonies again. And so the declaration was an effort to block that avenue of influence. But there was reason to doubt whether Monroe, or his successors, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, could stave them off, barely 35 years after the ratification of the Constitution.
It is unclear how much of this history is familiar to Mr. Trump. But as he revived the Monroe Doctrine on Saturday, he said: “We sort of forgot about it. It was very important, but we forgot about it. We don’t forget about it anymore under our new National Security Strategy. American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”
Presumably Mr. Trump was thinking about China and Russia. Those are certainly the two countries he has in mind as he renews his calls for Greenland to come under American rule, a topic that he raised at Mar-a-Lago during a news conference almost exactly a year ago, and then went quiet about for months. (He has also stopped discussing taking control of the Panama Canal and making Canada a 51st state.)
But the logic of this past weekend would suggest that Mr. Trump now believes the way is clear to claim resources that, in his view, the United States cannot live without. He is already setting up a parallel argument for Greenland which may — or may not — have substantial, recoverable rare earths.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,’’ Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday night. “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.”
“Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” he added. He said that to boost security for Greenland, “it added one more dog sled.”
Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, was clearly rattled earlier in the day by Mr. Trump’s renewed interest in the vast, if frozen, territory.
“It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the U.S. needing to take over Greenland,” Ms. Frederiksen wrote on social media. “The U.S. has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish Kingdom.”
Mr. Trump would not have the easy pretense to go after Greenland that he did in the case of Venezuela. And it is not clear the economic gains would be worth the breach with a NATO ally, in part because exploiting those resources would be wildly expensive.
But so will restoring Venezuela’s oil system.
“The infrastructure is rotten, rusty,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday evening.
Yet despite Mr. Trump’s constant search for a good deal, the daunting price tags do not seem to matter much to him. Venezuela, Greenland, Gaza, maybe Canada: These are legacies that will, over time, pay for themselves, he believes.
In the meantime, he appears to be playing a bit of one-upsmanship with James Monroe.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
10) Denmark Tells Trump to ‘Stop the Threats’ About Greenland
The Danish prime minister told President Trump to back down after he repeated his threat to acquire Greenland in the wake of the U.S. military raid in Venezuela.
By Amelia Nierenberg, Jan. 5, 2026
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark said that the United States had “no right to annex” Greenland and that the island was not for sale. Credit...Mads Claus Rasmussen/Ritzau Scanpix, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Denmark’s prime minister urged President Trump to “stop the threats” to take over Greenland after Mr. Trump reiterated his interest in controlling the semiautonomous territory of Denmark, following the U.S. military raid on Venezuela.
Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark said on Sunday that the United States had “no right to annex” Greenland, an island in the North Atlantic. “I would therefore strongly urge the United States to stop the threats against a historically close ally,” she said in a statement, adding that Greenlanders “have said very clearly that they are not for sale.”
Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen of Greenland also rejected Mr. Trump’s comments, writing on social media that the president’s rhetoric was “utterly unacceptable” and that connecting Venezuela with Greenland was “wrong” and “disrespectful.”
The two leaders were addressing comments Mr. Trump made to The Atlantic magazine just hours after the military raid in Venezuela, in which he repeated his desire to control Greenland and claimed that the island was “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships.”
Hours later, after the leaders of Greenland and Denmark responded to his comments, Mr. Trump doubled down.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One, adding that he thought Denmark was not doing enough to safeguard the territory.
Ms. Frederiksen’s statement noted that Denmark was a member of NATO and that a defense agreement with the United States already gave Washington “wide access to Greenland.”
The statements from the leaders of Denmark and Greenland also followed a separate American provocation: a post on social media from Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller, one of Mr. Trump’s top advisers. “SOON,” she wrote, with a map of Greenland shaded in by the American flag.
Jesper Moller Sorensen, Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, responded with a “friendly reminder” that Denmark expected “full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Several of Denmark’s European neighbors, as well as the European Union, have repeated their longstanding support following the rhetorical exchanges between Mr. Trump and the leaders of Denmark and Greenland.
“We would recall that Greenland is an ally to the U.S. and is also covered by the NATO alliance, and that is a big, big difference” from the situation in Venezuela, Paula Pinho, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said at a news conference on Monday.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain told reporters that he agreed with Ms. Frederiksen. “Denmark is a close European ally, a close NATO ally,” he said, and it was up to its leaders and those of Greenland to determine the island’s future.
“No one decides for Greenland and Denmark but Greenland and Denmark themselves,” President Alexander Stubb of Finland wrote on social media.
Mr. Trump’s comments were the latest in a series of actions that have unsettled the leaders of Denmark and Greenland in recent months.
Last month, he outraged officials by appointing a special envoy to the island. It was believed to be the first time that the United States had done so, and it was seen as part of his efforts to acquire the territory. Also last month, Denmark’s military intelligence warned about the United States for the first time in its annual threat assessment, saying that shifts in American policy were generating new uncertainties for Danish security.
The Danish government has also expressed anger over reports that the United States was spying on Greenland and running a covert influence campaign there.
Mr. Trump’s designs on Greenland have become more alarming for Denmark since the U.S. raid in Venezuela on Saturday, even though few Danes expect an imminent invasion, said Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies.
“It has gained a lot of traction in Denmark and it has generated a lot of worry,” he said.
The raid in Venezuela “shows the U.S. willingness to use force,” Dr. Olesen added, but he cautioned that comparing the two situations was “a bit of a leap.” American-Venezuelan relations have been “horrible for decades,” he said. “It’s a completely different ballgame to go and invade a NATO ally.”
Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting from Brussels.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
11) Trump’s Threat of Force Against Colombia Draws Rebuke From Its Leader
President Gustavo Petro said that he had asked the Colombian people to defend him “against any illegitimate violent act.” His defense minister emphasized that security cooperation with Washington continued.
By Genevieve Glatsky, Reporting from Bogotá, Colombia, Jan. 5, 2026
President Gustavo Petro of Colombia said he “asked the people to defend the president against any illegitimate violent act.” Credit...Sergio Yate/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Trump’s comments suggesting possible military action against Colombia drew a sharp response on Monday from its president, Gustavo Petro, while the country’s defense minister sought to emphasize continued cooperation with Washington.
After Mr. Trump said that U.S. military forces in the Caribbean could be used against Colombia and other countries, and accused Mr. Petro of being involved in cocaine production, Mr. Petro said: “If you detain a president whom much of my people want and respect, you will unleash the people’s jaguar.”
In a lengthy post on X, Mr. Petro said that “every Colombian soldier has now received this order: any commander of the security forces who prefers the U.S. flag over the Colombian flag will be immediately removed from the institution.” He added that he had “asked the people to defend the president against any illegitimate violent act.”
His comments came two days after the president of neighboring Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, was seized by U.S. forces and brought to New York City, where he and his wife were facing federal drug trafficking and other charges. Asked on Air Force One late Sunday if the U.S. military could conduct an operation against Colombia, Mr. Trump said, “It sounds good to me.”
For more than four decades, Colombia has been a cornerstone of U.S. counternarcotics strategy abroad and a top ally in the region. But Mr. Trump has had a combative relationship with Mr. Petro, who has blocked deportation flights, stood on the streets of Manhattan urging U.S. soldiers to disobey orders, and accused the United States of “murder” in its boat strikes in the eastern Pacific.
Colombia’s defense minister, Pedro Sánchez, declined to comment directly on Mr. Trump’s remarks in an interview on Monday with The New York Times. He said that he had remained in regular communication with the United States on counternarcotics efforts and that the two governments continue to have “a very close relationship.”
Any possible U.S. military operation against Colombia, he said, had not come up in his recent conversations with the ranking U.S. diplomat in Bogotá or American military advisers.
Mr. Sánchez added that Colombia’s information sharing with U.S. military and law enforcement agencies — including the Navy, Coast Guard, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — continued uninterrupted.
Colombia’s armed forces, he said, remain focused on “protecting our sovereignty, our independence and our territorial integrity.”
He added that Colombia has deployed more than 30,000 troops along its border with Venezuela to prepare for potential destabilization, a surge of migrants or confrontations with drug cartels that he said would “very likely feel increased pressure and attempt to harm the Colombian people.”
He described the situation in Venezuela since Mr. Maduro’s ouster as relatively calm, but said he had not had contact with Venezuelan political or military officials in recent days.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
12) After U.S. Strikes on Christmas, Fear Grips Muslims in Rural Nigeria
A small town set amid a smattering of baobab trees is grappling with the aftermath of a bombing ordered by President Trump.
By Dionne Searcey and Eric Schmitt, Jan. 5, 2026
Dionne Searcey reported from Jabo and Sokoto, Nigeria, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
Debris from a missile landed near a round well, center, in Jabo, Nigeria, and burned corn stalks that had been gathered for cattle feed. Taibat Ajiboye for The New York Times
The three herders stood at the lip of the crescent-shaped crater in the middle of a cornfield in Jabo, Northwest Nigeria, and peered down.
Curiosity had led them here, to a quiet farming town in Sokoto State, after nearly a week of discussing why President Trump would order a missile strike in the area, during onion harvest season, no less.
The men, who had traveled 167 miles to see the site, walked the lip of the shallow crater where parts of a Tomahawk missile struck on Christmas night before bouncing about 30 feet away and exploding, one of several strikes ordered by Mr. Trump to fight what he has called a “Christian genocide” led by Islamist terrorists in Nigeria, one of West Africa’s top economies.
Sokoto State, like numerous other parts of the country, has been troubled by violence. Bands of thugs steal cows and carry out kidnappings for ransom. A group called the Lakurawa, which some analysts and residents believe has ties to Islamic State affiliates, terrorizes residents.
Over the weekend, police said that dozens of people were killed and several abducted after gunmen attacked two neighboring villages that had been under siege for days in Niger State, elsewhere in northwest Nigeria.
But Jabo, a town of tidy tin-roofed homes set amid a smattering of baobab and acacia trees, has been a safe haven for people fleeing violence elsewhere in the region, according to the three men and local residents.
Nigerian officials have said debris from missiles used in the Christmas-night attack fell in Jabo accidentally. But that message hasn’t fully reached residents here, where word travels slowly. Residents described a ball of fire hurdling across the sky. A large cylinder from a Tomahawk landed intact in a field in Jabo. Another chunk set ablaze a carefully tied stack of cornstalks used for cooking fires and cattle feed, leaving a circular, charred stain on the ground.
“I’m hopeful and pray to God this doesn’t happen again,” said Mohammed Abubakar, one of three herders who traveled to Jabo from Zamfara State to witness the damage. “There’s nothing here,” he added, referring to terrorists.
In the days since the U.S. missile strikes, families in this rural area have combed the countryside to survey the damage. Maybe the terrorists were vaporized in the blasts, some said. Otherwise, they say they haven’t seen or heard evidence of any deaths.
Mr. Trump has said the targets were Islamic State terrorists who have been accused of killing innocent Christians. Nigeria’s information minister, Mohammed Idris, has said two major Islamic State terrorist enclaves were hit in the strikes. The U.S. military reported that the missiles hit targets in the Tangaza forest and said Friday that “assessments of the strike are ongoing.”
But residents said some of the missiles landed on farmland, with debris damaging only a handful of unoccupied buildings. They said one exploded in an abandoned encampment that dozens of Lakurawa members had fled in the days before the strikes, having heard what farmers in the area assumed were military surveillance flights overhead, according to two residents.
Amid the fear and the unknowns, a troubling narrative has emerged in Sokoto: Mr. Trump is targeting all Muslims in Nigeria. With all the might and intelligence of the U.S. military, why else would he bomb farming communities instead of terrorists?
“Some of us think this is part of his agenda to protect Christians,” said Abubakar Mohammed Jabo, whose home is not far from the strike site in Jabo.
White House officials did not respond to questions about the targeting of Muslims.
Fueling such thinking is regional history. The Sokoto Caliphate was one of the most significant empires in precolonial Africa. The city of Sokoto draws tourists to the Sultan’s Palace and the gravesite of Usman dan Fodio, the caliphate leader for whom a local university is named. Caliphate Radio Sokoto broadcasts news, and Caliphate-branded bread is sold in grocery stores.
Two U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the Sokoto State strikes were a one-time event that would allow Mr. Trump to say that he was avenging Christian deaths. The Navy destroyer that launched the missiles has moved out of the Gulf of Guinea. Both U.S. and Nigerian officials have said the United States will continue to cooperate on intelligence-sharing that could lead to further strikes by the Nigerian military.
Several residents of the choppy terrain on the outskirts of Sokoto, where communities are almost entirely Muslim, said violence terrorizes Christians and Muslims alike in the country.
Abdullahi Bako, a Muslim farmer and herder from Tangaza, said that when the Lakurawa moved in about a year ago, the group reined in thugs who had been stealing cattle and causing mayhem. The Lakurawa imposed a strict form of Islam, banning cigarettes and music, as well as socializing between men and women. They even beat barbers and their clients for shaving beards.
The Lakurawa offered to mediate spats between farmers and herders when livestock eat farmers’ crops. Mr. Bako said he had paid the Lakurawa 3 million naira (about $2,000) for damage done by his own 35 cows. But instead of giving the money to farmers, the group kept it for itself, he said.
Fearing their return, Mr. Bako has moved his small herd closer to a nearby town where the grazing is scant.
“If they come back,” he said, “they’re going to be deadlier.”
Hassan Umar Jabo traced a ball of fire across the sky the night of the bombings in Jabo. People raced to see the damage, trampling peppers, cassava and onions that had been planted. Boys grabbed metal chunks of the missile. Nigerian soldiers arrived to clean up the area and demanded everyone surrender any debris.
But some residents had squirreled it away, including a man who last week, as the sun was setting, showed off a piece of silver metal bolted to a blue wire, part of a missile that narrowly missed his hometown.
Ismail Auwal and Riley Mellen contributed reporting.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
13) Israel’s Stinging Retort to Mamdani Was Meant as Retaliation in Kind
After Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York scrapped two executive orders on antisemitism and boycotts, the Israeli Foreign Ministry issued an aggressive response to what it saw as an aggressive act.
By David M. Halbfinger, Reporting from Jerusalem, Jan. 5, 2026
The Israeli Foreign Ministry minced no words in responding to Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, who, in one of his first official acts, rescinded two of his predecessor’s executive orders that had been billed as fighting antisemitism and demonstrating support for Israel.
“On his very first day,” the ministry wrote on social media on Friday, “Mamdani shows his true face,” noting that the mayor had scrapped a definition of antisemitism and lifted restrictions on boycotting Israel.
“This isn’t leadership,” the ministry added. “It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.”
Mr. Mamdani rescinded other orders, not just those two, but while others were reissued — including one that established a city office to fight antisemitism — the ones on the antisemitism definition and on boycotting Israel were left erased from the books.
That was enough for the Israeli government to lash out.
Israel has become quick to take offense when it feels political leaders are demonstrating insensitivity to Jews or are failing to protect them — even more so after last month’s Bondi Beach massacre in Sydney, Australia.
In the hours after that attack, in which two gunmen killed 15 people at a Hanukkah celebration, the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Saar, took issue with an initial statement by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia expressing shock and distress over the killings.
Writing on social media, Mr. Saar noted three words that did not appear in Mr. Albanese’s statement: “Jews. Antisemitism. Terror.”
And when Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, added his own “thoughts and condolences to everyone affected,” Mr. Saar replied: “Distinguished PM, the terror attack targeted Jews.”
Veteran Israeli diplomats and analysts said that the Israeli government of late had been responding harshly to anything seen as undermining vigilance against antisemitism or eroding the security of Jewish communities.
“The tone in general has been much less diplomatic than it used to be,” said Emmanuel Navon, a foreign-policy analyst and lecturer at Tel Aviv University.
There has been no shortage of material for Israeli officials and others concerned about antisemitism to address. Since the Hamas-led massacre of Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, and throughout Israel’s war in Gaza, antisemitic attacks have soared worldwide, even as Israel has become sharply isolated on the international stage for its prosecution of that war.
Against that backdrop, Mr. Mamdani’s decision to undo former Mayor Eric Adams’s embrace of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism landed as an expression of objectionable priorities, as did his reversal of Mr. Adams’s ban on city agencies participating in boycotts of Israel. Mr. Mamdani has long supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.
The mayor rescinded every order Mr. Adams had issued since his indictment in September 2024, attempting to frame his action as a matter of good governance. A spokeswoman for Mr. Mamdani said that the decision to rescind the Adams orders had been deliberated over for months. Mr. Mamdani called the move necessary to restore the public’s trust in the office of the mayor after Mr. Adams’s indictment.
The Israeli government was not persuaded.
“The question is not why the Foreign Ministry chose to respond so quickly,” Oren Marmorstein, the ministry’s chief spokesman, said in an interview. “The real question is why Mamdani on his first day chose to repeal the I.H.R.A. definition of antisemitism and to cancel the anti-B.D.S. regulation.”
“This is his top priority,” Mr Marmorstein added. “This is a decision to deliberately send a very negative message regarding antisemitism on your very first day.”
Particularly in the wake of the Bondi Beach massacre, Mr. Marmorstein noted, Mr. Mamdani’s moves constituted an aggressive act that warranted an aggressive response.
“Antisemitism is on the rise, Jews are feeling intimidated, and they are being attacked,” Mr. Marmorstein said. “So what are you doing here?”
“As a leader, as someone people are looking up to, you’re sending a very wrong message,” he added.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism cites seven types of Israel-related speech that it says crosses into antisemitic territory. Those include accusing Jews or Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust; accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to their own countries; denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, such as by saying that Israel’s mere existence is racist; and holding Israel to a higher standard of conduct than is demanded of other democratic nations. Other examples include comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, and holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions.
Dozens of countries have endorsed or adopted the definition to varying degrees, as have many major cities, including Barcelona, Berlin, London, Paris, Rio de Janeiro and, in the United States, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami and Washington.
But critics of the definition contend that it is overly expansive and is being used to police speech by those who equate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.
Indeed, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s post drew considerable attention online, with 4.2 million views as of Sunday night, much of that attention was negative, accusing Israel of seeking to impinge on Americans’ freedom of speech.
Notably absent among the Israelis denouncing Mr. Mamdani’s New Year’s Day moves was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Mamdani has said that he would like the New York Police Department to enforce an arrest warrant against Mr. Netanyahu, who has been accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
According to an Israeli official briefed on the matter, the government’s strategy is for the Foreign Ministry, not the prime minister, to respond and in that way avoid exaggerating Mr. Mamdani’s importance. Otherwise, the Israeli government plans to wait and see how Mr. Mamdani’s administration addresses antisemitism and matters involving Israel going forward, according to the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
That resembles the approach taken by a coalition of American Jewish groups in addressing Mr. Mamdani’s two executive-order rollbacks. Those groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York, faulted the mayor for reversing some protections against antisemitism, while also “welcoming” his continuation of other protections. The groups added that they would be “looking for clear and sustained leadership” in the fight against antisemitism.
Theodore Sasson, a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said the group’s response was a “far cry” from that of the Foreign Ministry. But he added that Israeli officials were often less sensitive to charges that they “weaponize” allegations of antisemitism to shut down criticism of Israel than were American Jewish leaders, who he said generally defended the right to criticize Israel but not to deny its right to exist.
“There’s a difference in tone, and there’s a difference in the willingness to describe Mamdani as an antisemite,” Mr. Sasson said. “And that reflects a broader pattern under this government, of using the charge of antisemitism with the intention and effect of chilling criticism of Israel.”
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has also leveled accusations of antisemitism at municipal officials outside New York. It has feuded particularly acrimoniously with Ireland since that country recognized Palestinian statehood and threw its support behind South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice over the conduct of the war in Gaza. In December 2024, Israel said it would close its embassy in Dublin.
Then, in November, after Dublin announced it would rename Chaim Herzog Park — which since 1995 has borne the name of Israel’s sixth president, who was largely raised in the Irish capital — Mr. Saar assailed the move. “Dublin has become the capital of antisemitism in the world,” he wrote on social media. “The Irish antisemitic and anti-Israeli obsession is sickening.”
Dublin dropped the proposal to rename the park a few days later.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
14) Why Trump Refused to Back Venezuela’s Machado: Fears of Chaos, and Fraying Ties
U.S. intelligence suggested María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s opposition leader, would struggle to lead the government. But her relationship with Trump officials had been souring for months.
By Tyler Pager, Anatoly Kurmanaev and Julian E. Barnes, Published Jan. 5, 2026, Updated Jan. 6, 2026
Tyler Pager reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.; Anatoly Kurmanaev from Caracas, Venezuela; and Julian E. Barnes from Washington.
Ms. Machado greeting supporters from a hotel balcony in Oslo last month. Credit...Odd Andersen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Even before the lightning-quick U.S. raid on Venezuela’s capital, President Trump had made a crucial decision about what would happen once the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, was out of the picture.
Mr. Trump would not be throwing his support behind María Corina Machado, the opposition leader who led a successful election campaign against Mr. Maduro in 2024 and had the greatest popular legitimacy to lead the nation.
Behind the scenes, Mr. Trump came to his conclusion based on several crucial factors, including U.S. intelligence that suggested the opposition would have trouble leading the government, and a souring relationship between Ms. Machado and top Trump officials, according to five people with knowledge of his decision-making.
“I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,” Mr. Trump said over the weekend, after the mission ended with Mr. Maduro in U.S. custody. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.”
Instead, Mr. Trump settled on Mr. Maduro’s vice president to take the helm.
For Ms. Machado, Mr. Trump’s comments landed like a gut punch, and it represented a public break for the United States with a leader who had spent more than a year trying to ingratiate herself to Mr. Trump — so much so that when Ms. Machado was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which he covets, she dedicated it to him.
The president had been persuaded by arguments from senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said that if the United States tried to back the opposition, it could further destabilize the country and require a more robust military presence inside the country. A classified C.I.A. intelligence analysis reflected that view, as well, according to a person familiar with the document.
For Mr. Trump, the focus in Venezuela is oil, not promoting democracy.
And even though Ms. Machado has gone out of her way to please Mr. Trump, in reality her relationship with the White House had been fraying for months. Senior U.S. officials had grown frustrated with her assessments of Mr. Maduro’s strength, feeling that she provided inaccurate reports that he was weak and on the verge of collapse. They also grew skeptical of her ability to seize power in Venezuela.
Representatives for Ms. Machado did not respond to requests for comment.
In fact, she had been a source of friction inside the Trump administration since soon after the president returned to office last January.
Shortly before a visit to the capital, Caracas, in January, Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s envoy, met with Ms. Machado’s representatives in the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Washington. Mr. Grenell asked them to arrange an in-person meeting with Ms. Machado in Caracas and for a list of political prisoners they wanted liberated.
But the in-person meeting never happened. Ms. Machado, despite promises from the American delegation that she would be protected, refused to meet with Mr. Grenell. Instead, a phone call was arranged during his visit, according to multiple people briefed on the call.
The phone call was cordial. But over time the relationship deteriorated, according to people briefed on the interactions. Ms. Machado and her team ignored the request for a list of political prisoners, out of apparent desire to avoid accusations of favoritism, or of intimating that her movement is taking part in the negotiations.
Mr. Grenell repeatedly pressed Ms. Machado to outline her plan for putting her surrogate candidate, Edmundo González, into office after she was barred from running. He grew frustrated when she expressed no concrete ideas of how to put the democratically elected government into power, according to people briefed on the conversations.
For her part, Ms. Machado was also upset that Mr. Grenell, unlike Mr. Rubio, did not forcefully denounce Mr. Maduro as illegitimate. Mr. Grenell told colleagues that such a statement, while true, would undercut his diplomatic outreach.
Mr. Grenell declined to comment.
For now, Mr. Trump and Mr. Rubio have said they are focused on working with the interim president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, a vice president under Mr. Maduro.
“We are dealing with the immediate reality,” Mr. Rubio said on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The immediate reality is that, unfortunately and sadly, but unfortunately the vast majority of the opposition is no longer present inside of Venezuela. We have short-term things that have to be addressed right away.”
Freddy Guevara, a former Venezuelan congressman living in exile in New York and a member of Ms. Machado’s coalition, said that he did not know why the White House had chosen to move forward with Ms. Rodríguez, but his best guess was that it was the easiest path for now.
“I think the Americans are not betting on revolution, but on reforms,” he said.
He and fellow opposition members are now focused on pushing first for the release of political prisoners in Venezuela, and then for the ability to return to Venezuela and compete in open elections.
“We’re going to keep organizing people and doing our thing inside Venezuela,” Mr. Guevara said. “But the one who’s holding the gun now is the American government. And we hope that these guys learn that the Americans are not playing, and that now there’s a credible threat if they don’t comply.”
Mr. Trump’s embrace of Ms. Rodríguez is also forcing some Republicans, who have been staunch supporters of Ms. Machado, into difficult positions. Miami’s three Republican members of Congress faced repeated questions in a news conference on Saturday night about why Mr. Trump had dismissed Ms. Machado.
One of the lawmakers, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, took offense at any suggestion that he or his colleagues no longer backed Ms. Machado. They reiterated their strong support for her but did not venture any explanations for Mr. Trump’s words.
“I’m convinced that when there are elections, whether there are new elections or there’s a decision to take the old elections, the last elections, that the next democratically elected president of Venezuela is going to be María Corina Machado,” Mr. Diaz-Balart said.
Ms. Machado, a scion of a conservative magnate, had built strong connections in the Republican Party over the decades spent in Venezuelan politics, but she appeared little prepared for the transformation of the party into a transactional, ideologically agnostic political machine under Mr. Trump.
Categorical rejection of any talks or contact with Mr. Maduro’s government has been a bedrock of Ms. Machado’s political strategy, a strategy that has earned her the respect and support of a majority of Venezuelan people, but it has crippled her ability to build a broader coalition capable of enabling her bid for power.
Ms. Machado’s unequivocal support of sanctions has destroyed her relations with Venezuela’s business elite, which had built a modus vivendi with Mr. Maduro to continue working in the country after a quarter-century of his government’s rule.
Ms. Machado’s economic advisers have argued that every dollar going into Venezuela was a dollar for Mr. Maduro, a radical stance that had alienated many members of Venezuela’s civil society working to improve living conditions in the country. Her message had increasingly begun to mirror the views of the diaspora and deviated from the realities of people who remained in Venezuela.
As Mr. Trump tightened his economic sanctions over Venezuela in recent months, Ms Machado remained largely silent, reducing her statements to the praise of Mr. Trump and publicizing the suffering of the hundreds of Venezuelan political prisoners.
She has not issued a comment on the cancellation of most flights into Venezuela, the deportation of tens of thousands of Venezuelan migrants from the United States, the skyrocketing inflation in the country or the collapse of oil revenues, which finance the import of basic goods into the country.
Instead, members of Ms. Machado’s team and allies in exile took to social media to attack and discredit public figures whose work deviated from their views.
These actions cost Ms. Machado the support of members of the Democratic Party and many businesspeople, American and Venezuelan, who had interests in Venezuela and influence in Mr. Trump’s orbit.
Orlando J. Pérez, a professor of political science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said Mr. Trump’s comment on Saturday about Ms. Machado shocked him.
“The statement that she is not respected inside, I think is, is not true on the face of it,” he said. “She clearly is the most popular opposition leader. She clearly has the legitimacy that the Nobel Peace Prize gives her.”
But Mr. Pérez said Mr. Trump’s comment reflected the infeasibility of Ms. Machado’s taking power without a significant American military presence.
“They don’t have the levers of power,” he said of Ms. Machado and Mr. González. “They don’t have the institutions, and without us over assistance, they’re not going to get back into power in Venezuela.”
Mr. Trump’s comments were also widely noticed among Venezuelans in South Florida, who tend to feel deep affection for Ms. Machado.
“We were a little surprised by what he said about María Corina,” said Nelson Jiménez, 55, who left Venezuela in 2020.
Mr. Jiménez said Mr. Trump might be “ill informed” about how much support Ms. Machado has in Venezuela. “I think he’s wrong,” he said.
Reporting was contributed by Jack Nicas in Mexico City; Patricia Mazzei in Doral, Fla.; and David C. Adams in Key Biscayne, Fla.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
15) Why Israel Is Divided Over How to Investigate Oct. 7 Failures
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed a commission with members chosen in a way that departs from existing law.
By Isabel Kershner, Reporting from Jerusalem, Jan. 6, 2026
A memorial in 2025 on the grounds of the Nova music festival, which was attacked by Hamas and other militants on Oct. 7, 2023. David Guttenfelder/The New York Times
The Hamas-led attack of Oct. 7, 2023, is widely regarded as the worst military, intelligence and policy failure in Israel’s history. But for many Israelis, the question of who was responsible for those failings is far from settled.
The assault took the Israeli government, military and security services by surprise, and Israel has not yet conducted an official, comprehensive inquiry to apportion responsibility for that breakdown in national security. Thousands of gunmen crossed the border from Gaza on that day and attacked Israeli towns and villages, army bases and a music festival, killing about 1,200 people, according to the Israeli authorities. About 250 people were taken as captives to Gaza.
Now, after two years of war in Gaza, and with a fragile cease-fire in place, the Israeli government is advancing legislation to hold an inquiry into the events of Oct. 7.
Under a proposal by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the members of the investigating commission would be chosen in a way that departs from existing Israeli law.
In a speech in Parliament on Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said that his proposal had a “broad consensus” among the public and was “the only way the truth will come to light,” but he acknowledged that the parliamentary opposition vehemently opposed the plan.
As the government enters an election year, its proposal for how it should be held to account has become another point of contention in a deeply divided country.
What is the Israeli government proposing?
The Israeli Knesset, or Parliament, narrowly approved a preliminary reading of a bill on Dec. 24 to form what the government called a “state-national commission of inquiry” into the October 2023 attack.
The proposal calls for an investigating commission of about six members. Half would be selected by Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition, and half by the parliamentary opposition.
According to existing Israeli law, an independent state commission of inquiry should be composed of members chosen by the president of the Supreme Court, not by lawmakers. The right-wing Netanyahu government has rejected the idea of a commission appointed by the Supreme Court president, Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit, contending that the public has no faith in him. It has instead called for a “special” commission, appointed by politicians.
The government has been battling and boycotting Justice Amit as part of its wider, divisive plans for a judicial overhaul that would curb the authorities of the court.
“An unprecedented event like Oct. 7 requires a special commission of inquiry, a broad national commission that will be acceptable to the majority of the nation,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement ahead of the Knesset vote. “This will be an egalitarian commission. No side will have any advantage in appointing the members of the commission,” he added.
Mr. Netanyahu insists that the commission he is proposing will be independent and have the same powers as previous commissions of inquiry. It will require several more votes in Parliament before it becomes law.
Critics say he is trying to play for time and evade responsibility for the failures on his watch.
Opposition parties have vowed not to participate in the process.
“The whole purpose of this bill is to help the prime minister duck responsibility,” Yair Lapid, the centrist leader of the opposition, said on the day of the vote, adding, “The opposition will not cooperate with this shameful farce.”
What does the public want?
Numerous polls have shown that a majority of Israelis favor a state commission of inquiry held according to existing law, viewing that as the most credible mechanism for investigating the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
State commissions of inquiry have broad powers, including the ability to call witnesses and compel them to testify. In the past, they have apportioned blame and made recommendations against individuals.
The conclusions of the Agranat Commission, which examined the failures that led to the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria during the first days of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, forced resignations in the army’s senior ranks and a restructuring of the military. Later, the wartime prime minister, Golda Meir, also resigned.
The Kahan Commission in the 1980s apportioned indirect responsibility to Israel’s leaders for a massacre by Lebanese Phalangist forces of Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. The panel determined that though the Israeli military held the area, no steps were taken to prevent the bloodshed. The commission recommended that Ariel Sharon, the defense minister at the time, be removed from his post, and he eventually resigned.
Has Netanyahu taken any responsibility for Oct. 7?
While Mr. Netanyahu has been in office for most of the years since 2009 and has largely shaped Israel’s security doctrine, he has so far not accepted any personal responsibility for the failures of Oct 7. He said he would answer the tough questions only after the war. An open-ended, if tenuous, cease-fire took hold about three months ago.
The Israeli military has carried out internal inquiries into its failures leading up to and during the October 2023 assault, finding that its senior officers vastly underestimated Hamas and then misinterpreted early warnings that a major attack was coming. Several military and security leaders have resigned or been removed from their posts.
What do the victims’ families say?
Among the most vociferous critics of the government’s refusal to establish a traditional state commission of inquiry are survivors of the October 2023 attack, those who were held in captivity in Gaza, and relatives of those killed in the assault.
More than 200 of the families recently signed an open letter calling for an independent state commission of inquiry. “Without a true investigation, we cannot guarantee the disaster of Oct. 7 will never happen again,” they wrote.
Mr. Netanyahu says that his special commission of inquiry will include bereaved parents as “observers.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
16) Venezuela Braces for Economic Collapse From U.S. Blockade
Venezuela could lose the bulk of its oil export revenues this year if the U.S. blockade stays in place, according to internal government estimates, a scenario that would set off a humanitarian crisis.
By Anatoly Kurmanaev, Reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, Jan. 6, 2026
“Oil tankers on a U.S. sanctions list will continue being blocked from leaving or entering until the Venezuelan government opens its state-controlled oil industry to foreign investment — presumably giving priority to American companies — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday on ‘Face the Nation’ on CBS News.”
Employees outside Venezuela’s state oil company, known as PDVSA, in Caracas in October. Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times
Even before American forces blasted their way into Venezuela’s capital and seized President Nicolás Maduro on Saturday, the nation was already facing dire economic prospects.
The partial blockade imposed by the United States on Venezuela’s energy exports was expected to shutter more than 70 percent of the country’s oil production this year and wipe out its dominant source of public revenue, according to people briefed on Venezuela’s internal projections compiled in December.
The Trump administration’s decision last month to begin targeting tankers carrying Venezuelan crude to Asian markets had paralyzed the state oil company’s exports. To keep the wells pumping, the state oil company, known as PDVSA, had been redirecting crude oil into storage tanks and turning tankers idling in ports into floating storage facilities.
This strategy merely bought the company some time before it ran out of storage for the pumped oil it was unable to sell. TankerTrackers, a shipping data firm, estimated late last month that Venezuela had enough spare storage until the end of January.
But production could collapse swiftly after that, the people briefed said.
If the blockade held, the Venezuelan government expected national oil production to collapse from about 1.2 million barrels per day late last year to less than 300,000 later this year, said the people briefed — a drop that would significantly reduce the government’s ability to import goods and maintain basic services. The people had access to the projections and discussed them on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Mr. Maduro’s capture has only added more uncertainty to these projections.
Oil tankers on a U.S. sanctions list will continue being blocked from leaving or entering until the Venezuelan government opens its state-controlled oil industry to foreign investment — presumably giving priority to American companies — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS News.
“That remains in place, and that’s a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is No. 1, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela,” Mr. Rubio said.
But Venezuela’s interim government already appears to be testing the seriousness of that threat. At least 16 oil tankers hit by U.S. sanctions seem to have made an attempt to evade the blockade and leave Venezuelan ports since Saturday, in part by disguising their true locations or turning off their transmission signals.
If they manage to breach the blockade and export the crude, Venezuela’s oil industry could buy itself some time to adjust to the new reality, the people close to the industry said.
But if the blockade holds, the country would face a catastrophe, they added.
In a worst-case scenario considered by Venezuela’s government, this year’s national oil production would be limited to only the fields operated by the American company, Chevron. It has a unique permit from the Trump administration to work in Venezuela, and is the only company regularly shipping oil from the South American nation since the start of the partial blockade on Dec. 11, shipping data shows.
This scenario would force PDVSA, Venezuela’s largest employer, to furlough tens of thousands of workers and slash employee benefits, the people briefed said.
PDVSA and Venezuela’s communication ministry, which handles questions from news organizations, did not respond to requests for comment.
In recent years, Venezuela’s economy had seen some modest economic recovery after years of hyperinflation and food shortages that led millions of Venezuelans to flee the country. But Mr. Trump’s economic pressure campaign has snuffed out that progress and now threatens to turn an anticipated recession into another economic collapse.
Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodríguez, was initially scathing in her criticism of the Trump administration, saying that its goal was “the seizure of our energy, mineral and natural resources.”
On Sunday night, however, her tone softened in a conciliatory statement addressed to Mr. Trump. “We extend an invitation to the U.S. government to work together on a cooperative agenda, oriented toward shared development, within the framework of international law, and to strengthen lasting community coexistence,” she wrote on social media.
Oil exports account for about 40 percent of Venezuela’s public revenue, according to estimates by Francisco Rodríguez, an expert on the Venezuelan economy at the University of Denver. Mr. Rodríguez, who is not related to Delcy Rodríguez, added that the oil industry’s true economic impact is even larger, since much of the country’s remaining economic activity is financed by revenue from crude sales.
Mr. Trump has justified using force against tankers tied to Venezuela by claiming that the Venezuelan government has stolen oil and land belonging to America, apparently referring to the nationalization of foreign-operated oil fields in 2007. Starting on Dec. 11, U.S. forces seized two tankers carrying Venezuelan oil and attempted to board a third tanker as it sailed to Venezuela, leading PDVSA to largely stop authorizing shipments on tankers not associated with Chevron.
So far, Mr. Trump’s partial oil blockade has had a limited impact on Venezuela’s oil output as the government stores crude oil wherever it can.
Production from PDVSA’s joint ventures with other companies, which account for the bulk of the country’s total, fell 2.5 percent in December from the previous month, according to internal PDVSA data.
Venezuela’s financial outlook is complicated by the fact that the government derives little direct financial benefit from Chevron’s exports. Its exemption from sanctions issued by the U.S. Treasury Department prohibits the company from actually making most payments to the Venezuelan government.
Instead, Chevron compensates PDVSA for the right to pump oil from its fields by giving the company part of the crude from joint projects. But PDVSA has struggled to sell its share of that crude in recent weeks, putting pressure on its limited storage facilities.
In a statement in response to questions for this article, Chevron said its operations in Venezuela fully comply with applicable laws and the U.S. sanctions framework. The company declined to provide further comment.
China, Venezuela’s biggest oil customer, is unlikely to significantly lean on the United States to ease the blockade, analysts say, since it can simply buy more from Iran or Russia.
Venezuela’s ruling party has faced comparable economic pressures before.
Oil exports collapsed to 350,000 barrels per day in the summer of 2020, during Mr. Trump’s previous effort to oust Mr. Maduro. And in 2002, oil workers allied with the Venezuelan opposition shut down the country’s oil industry for two months in a national strike.
The government’s control over key factions of security forces allowed it to weather the economic pressure both times. In recent years, the government has boosted other sources of export revenue, including gold, iron ore and strategic minerals.
Most of the brunt of the collapse of the oil revenue would be felt by the Venezuelan population, said Mr. Rodríguez, the economist.
“We would see a massive recession,” he said. “You will get either a famine or mass migration.”
Rebecca Elliott contributed reporting from New York.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
17) Homeland Security Steps Up Enforcement in Minneapolis
Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, posted a video showing an immigration arrest being made as part of the administration’s announced crackdown.
By Madeleine Ngo, Jan. 6, 2026
Federal law enforcement agents making a traffic stop in Minneapolis on Monday. No one was detained. Credit...Tim Evans/Reuters
Department of Homeland Security officials began ramping up immigration enforcement in the Minneapolis area in recent days, escalating its push to crack down on illegal immigration in the region.
Federal officials have promoted the operation in various social media posts. On Tuesday morning, the Department of Homeland Security posted a video that depicted Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, and several law enforcement officers entering a building and taking a man into custody in Minneapolis.
“Just arrested this criminal illegal alien from Ecuador who has an active warrant for murder and sexual assault in Ecuador,” Ms. Noem said in a social media post. No confirmation of her assertions was immediately provided, and the agency did not respond to requests for details about the operation.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security posted on social media: “GOOD MORNING MINNEAPOLIS!”
The Department of Homeland Security launched an intensive immigration enforcement operation in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region last month, primarily targeting hundreds of undocumented Somali immigrants, according to an official with knowledge of the operation and documents obtained by The New York Times. President Trump has used increasingly inflammatory language to attack Somalis living in the United States.
The administration has focused attention on Minnesota after an investigation into accusations of fraud in a Covid-19 program meant to feed children and other safety net programs administered by the administration of Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat. Federal prosecutors have asserted that as much as $9 billion might have been stolen.
More than 90 people have been charged with felonies in the federal fraud cases. Most of the defendants are of Somali origin.
On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security accused the Hilton hotel company of “maliciously” canceling reservations made at a Hampton Inn by officers using government email addresses. A representative for Hilton said the location was independently owned and operated, adding that the actions described by federal officials were not “reflective of Hilton values.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
18) UK hunger strike passes 60 days with Palestine activists suffering severe health complications
Campaigners warn that detainees, including Heba Muraisi, face risk of organ failure as the protest enters its third month
By Areeb Ullah, Published date: 6 January 2026
Campaigners criticised the UK government for refusing to meet them to discuss the eight Palestine Action linked hunger strikers (AFP)
A Palestinian activist on remand in a UK prison is suffering worsening medical complications, including muscle spasms and difficulty breathing, as her hunger strike passes the 60-day mark.
Prisoners for Palestine (P4P) said that Heba Muraisi - on remand for more than a year over Palestine-related activism - has now reached 64 days without food, making her the longest-serving hunger striker amongst the group.
Muraisi began her strike on 3 November 2025 after she was transferred without notice from HMP Bronzefield to HMP New Hall, hundreds of miles away from her family and support network.
Muraisi told P4P that she has been “experiencing muscle spasms and twitches in her arm” and at times feels “like she is holding her breath and doesn’t know why, like she has to remind herself to breathe”.
P4P says these symptoms could indicate emerging neurological damage.
Muraisi has vowed not to end her hunger strike unless she is returned to HMP Bronzefield and granted immediate bail - demands she says reflect the strain of prolonged remand custody that, campaigners argue, has already exceeded standard UK limits.
Her mother, Dunya, who has been unable to visit her daughter, expressed support in a letter shared by P4P:
“We are here behind you, supporting you and loving you without limits,” said Dunya. “No matter how long the night of waiting lasts, the sun of freedom will surely rise.”
‘Grave danger looms’
Muraisi is one of eight activists linked to Palestine Action who have been on hunger strike to protest the goverment's decision to hold them on remand and proscribe the direct action group.
Four of the activists have paused their hunger strike and said they would resume their protest in the new year.
Last week, another hunger striker, Kamran Ahmed, was hospitalised for the fifth time since beginning his hunger strike.
His family told Middle East Eye that Ahmed said he was kept double-cuffed throughout his hospital stay, leaving his wrists swollen, while healthcare staff struggled to insert cannulas because his veins had shrunk.
Ahmed has now reached 58 days on hunger strike and has reported intermittent hearing loss - a sign that irreversible damage could be imminent, medical experts cited by campaigners warned.
P4P says it has repeatedly raised concerns about the restraints used during Ahmed’s hospital admissions and the wider lack of medical accommodation for the strikers.
The British government has so far refused to meet the hunger strikers or their representatives despite the escalating health risks, the group said, warning that organ failure, paralysis, brain damage and sudden death are becoming “increasingly more likely”.
“As the hunger strike enters its third month, those still on hunger strike continue to deteriorate, and grave danger looms over them,” said P4P spokesperson Francesca Nadin.
“Despite this, they remain firm in their actions and beliefs, that continuing to strike is the only way to get justice in the face of the government’s contempt for life.”
Hunger strike paused
Meanwhile, a third prisoner, Teuta Hoxha, has temporarily paused her hunger strike after authorities handed over a backlog of letters dating back six months, provided a book alongside an apology for the delay, and confirmed a meeting with the Joint Extremism Unit (JEXU) to discuss her conditions.
However, campaigners say the prison has since refused to send her to the hospital, despite doctors' warning that she cannot safely manage feeding herself without risk of refeeding syndrome, a potentially life-threatening complication.
P4P argues that the treatment of all three prisoners reflects a wider pattern of punitive transfers, prolonged remand, and inadequate medical protection faced by detainees linked to Palestine solidarity activism.
The Ministry of Justice and the prison service have been approached for comment.
Last month, seven UN human rights experts also warned the UK government that the eight pro-Palestine activists on hunger strike risk organ failure and death.
The seven experts who work independently of each other said the activist's decision to refuse food reflected a “measure of last resort” taken by people who believe “their right to protest and effect remedy has been exhausted”.
The lawyers are now launching legal action against the UK government for refusing to meet with them.
The eight detainees are being held on remand in five prisons over their alleged involvement in break-ins at factories owned by Israeli arms company Elbit Systems and a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire.
They deny the charges.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
