By REGINA GARCIA CANO, JUAN ARRAEZ and ISABEL DEBRE, Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Uncertainty gripped Venezuela on Saturday as people scrambled to understand who was in charge of the South American country after a U.S. military operation captured President Nicolás Maduro.

“What will happen tomorrow? What will happen in the next hour? Nobody knows,” Caracas resident Juan Pablo Petrone said.

President Donald Trump delivered a shocking pick for who would take control: The United States, perhaps in coordination with one of Maduro’s most trusted aides.

Delcy Rodríguez has served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy as well as its feared intelligence service. But she is someone the Trump administration apparently is willing to work with, at least for now.

“She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,” Trump told reporters of Rodríguez, who faced U.S. sanctions during Trump’s first administration for her role in undermining Venezuelan democracy.

Long lines wound through supermarkets and outside gas stations as Venezuelans long used to crises stocked up once again. Small pro-government rallies broke out in parts of Caracas, but most streets remained empty in the nation of 29 million people.

In a major snub, Trump said opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who was awarded last year’s Nobel Peace Prize, didn’t have the support to run the country.

Trump said Rodríguez had a long conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in which Trump claimed she said, “‘We’ll do whatever you need.’”

“I think she was quite gracious,” Trump added. “We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.”

Rodríguez tried to project strength and unity among the ruling party’s many factions, downplaying any hint of betrayal. In remarks on state TV, she demanded the immediate release of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and denounced the U.S. operation as a flagrant violation of the United Nations charter.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro,” Rodríguez said, surrounded by top civilian officials and military commanders.

There was no immediate sign that the U.S. was running Venezuela.

No sign of a swearing-in

Trump indicated that Rodríguez had been sworn in already as president of Venezuela, per the transfer of power outlined in the constitution. However, state television has not broadcast any swearing-in ceremony.

In her televised address, Rodríguez did not declare herself acting president or mention a political transition. A ticker at the bottom of the screen identified her as the vice president. She gave no sign that she would be cooperating with the U.S.

“What is being done to Venezuela is an atrocity that violates international law,” she said. “History and justice will make the extremists who promoted this armed aggression pay.”

The Venezuelan constitution also says a new election must be called within a month in the event of the president’s absence. But experts have been debating whether the succession scenario would apply here, given the government’s lack of popular legitimacy and the extraordinary U.S. military intervention.

Venezuelan military officials were quick to project defiance in video messages.

“They have attacked us but will not break us,” said Defense Minister Gen. Vladimir Padrino López, dressed in fatigues.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello appeared on state TV in a helmet and flak jacket, urging Venezuelans to “trust in the political leadership and military” and “get out on the streets” to defend the country’s sovereignty.

“These rats attacked and they will regret what they did,” he said of the U.S.

Caracas residents like Yanire Lucas were left picking up shattered glass and other debris after an early-morning explosion in a military base next to her house.

“What is happening is unprecedented,” Lucas said, adding that her family is scared to leave home. “We’re still on edge, and now we’re uncertain about what to do.”

Strong ties with Wall Street

A lawyer educated in Britain and France, Rodríguez has a long history of representing the revolution started by the late Hugo Chávez on the world stage.

She and her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, head of the Maduro-controlled National Assembly, have strong leftist credentials born from tragedy. Their father was a socialist leader who died in police custody in the 1970s, a crime that shook many activists of the era, including a young Maduro.

Unlike many in Maduro’s inner circle, the Rodríguez siblings have avoided criminal indictment in the U.S. Delcy Rodríguez has developed strong ties with Republicans in the oil industry and on Wall Street who balked at the notion of U.S.-led regime change.

Among her past interlocutors was Blackwater founder Erik Prince and, more recently, Richard Grenell, a Trump special envoy who tried to negotiate a deal with Maduro for greater U.S. influence in Venezuela.

Fluent in English, Rodríguez is sometimes portrayed as a well-educated moderate in contrast to the military hardliners who took up arms with Chávez against Venezuela’s democratically elected president in the 1990s.

Many of them, especially Cabello, are wanted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges and stand accused of serious human rights abuses. But they continue to hold sway over the armed forces, the traditional arbiter of political disputes in Venezuela.

That presents major challenges to Rodríguez asserting authority. But experts say that Venezuela’s power brokers have long had a habit of closing ranks behind their leaders.

“These leaders have all seen the value of staying united. Cabello has always taken a second seat or third seat, knowing that his fate is tied up with Maduro’s, and now he very well might do that again,” said David Smilde, a sociology professor at Tulane University who has conducted research into Venezuela’s political dynamics over the past three decades.

“A lot depends on what happened last night, which officials were taken out, what the state of the military looks like now,” Smilde said. “If it doesn’t have much firepower anymore, they’re more vulnerable and diminished and it will be easier for her to gain control.”

An apparent snub of the opposition

Shortly before Trump’s press conference, Machado, the opposition leader, called on her ally Edmundo González — a retired diplomat widely considered to have won the country’s disputed 2024 presidential election — to “immediately assume his constitutional mandate and be recognized as commander-in-chief.”

In an triumphant statement, Machado promised that her movement would “restore order, free political prisoners, build an exceptional country and bring our children back home.”

She added: “Today we are prepared to assert our mandate and take power.”

Asked about Machado, Trump was blunt: “I think it would be very tough for (Machado) to be the leader,” he said.

“She doesn’t have the support or respect within the country.”

Venezuelans expressed shock, with many speculating on social media that Trump had mixed up the two women’s names. Machado has not responded to Trump’s remarks.

Associated Press reporter Joshua Goodman contributed to this report from Miami. Debre reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

By LISA MASCARO, JOSHUA GOODMAN and BEN FINLEY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.

The middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.

“This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.

The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.

The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”

Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrender

Maduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.

By contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.

“The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”

While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.

For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.

“Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actions

Trump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.

The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.

Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.

Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.

“The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.

“Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”

War powers vote ahead

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.

Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.

“Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.

Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”

The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.

“I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.

Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.

Goodman reported from Miami.

By AAMER MADHANI, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump declared Saturday’s military operation that led to the ouster of Nicolás Maduro a major success as he offered a vague plan for his administration “to run” Venezuela until a transition of power can take place.

While there are no visible signs of a U.S. presence on the ground in Caracas, Trump was demonstrating chutzpah that’s become the trademark of his foreign policy approach. It’s one marked by a grand confidence that his will on the international stage is an immovable force.

“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history,” Trump declared at a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

The president strode into office with a promise to turn the page on America’s decades of foreign entanglements. But on Saturday, he committed the U.S. to help Venezuela usher in a period of “peace” and “justice” after decades of rule by strongmen.

The president’s pledge to a Venezuela project comes as he finds himself struggling to bring about a permanent peace between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and find an endgame to Russia’s nearly four-year war in Ukraine.

But the path ahead is treacherous. The White House will need to grapple with any power vacuum caused by Maduro’s ouster and inevitable complications of trying to maintain stability in a country that’s already endured years of hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages and brain drain despite its vast oil wealth.

It also remains to be seen what lessons U.S. adversaries may take from Trump’s decision to demonstrate American might in its sphere of influence in the aftermath of Trump’s play in Caracas. China’s Xi Jinping has vowed to annex the self-ruled island of Taiwan and Russia’s Vladimir Putin has designs on neighbor Ukraine and diminishing NATO’s eastern flank.

Yet Trump was unflinching in his confidence that the bad actors of the old government will be pushed aside as he helps make Venezuela “great again.” He also sought to reassure American taxpayers that they won’t be on the hook for his plan to help out Caracas.

“The money coming out of the ground is very substantial,” Trump said. “We’re going to get reimbursed for everything that we spend.”

Trump hasn’t shied away from flexing U.S. military might even as he has vowed to keep America out of war. He’s now twice used U.S. forces to carry out risky operations against American adversaries. In June, he directed U.S. strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites.

Saturday’s action stirred fresh anxiety in capitals around the world that have sought to adjust to a new normal in Trump 2.0, where the idea of the U.S. trying to find global consensus on issues of war and peace is now passe.

What’s next for Venezuela?

European allies had expressed concern as Trump built up a massive presence of troops in the Caribbean in recent months and carried out dozens of lethal strikes on suspected drug smugglers — many that the administration claimed were effectively an arm of the Maduro government.

Maduro was hardly viewed as a choir boy by the international community. His 2018 and 2024 elections were seen as riddled with irregularities and viewed as illegitimate.

But many U.S. allies greeted news of Maduro’s capture with a measure of trepidation.

European Commission President António Costa said he had “great concern” about the situation in Venezuela following the U.S. operation.

France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said “the military operation that led to the capture of Maduro infringes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law.”

The criticism from some Democrats over Trump’s military action to oust Maduro was immediate.

“This war is illegal, it’s embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year.” Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona wrote on X. “There is no reason for us to be at war with Venezuela.”

Russia’s foreign ministry condemned what it called a U.S. “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela in a statement posted on its Telegram channel Saturday. The ouster of Maduro, who was backed by the Russians, comes as Trump is urging Putin to end his war on Ukraine.

“Venezuela must be guaranteed the right to determine its own destiny without any destructive, let alone military, outside intervention,” the statement said.

Similarly, China’s foreign ministry in a statement condemned the U.S. operation, saying it violates international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty.

Capture follows months of pressure

The operation was the culmination of a push inside the administration led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other like-minded foes of Maduro who have been urging Trump to take action against the Venezuelan leader for years.

In south Florida — the epicenter of the Venezuelan diaspora opposition to Maduro that has influenced Rubio’s thinking — Saturday’s operation was cheered as an era-changing moment for democracy.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, a Florida Republican, said he had spoken to Rubio and thanked Trump for having “changed the course of history in our hemisphere. Our country & the world are safer for it,” he wrote on X, comparing Maduro’s ouster to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Trump: Venezuela has no chance without his intervention

Maduro had sought a pathway to exit from power while saving face.

Venezuelan government officials had floated a plan in which Maduro would eventually leave office, The Associated Press reported in October.

The proposal called for Maduro to step down in three years and hand over to his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, who would complete Maduro’s six-year term that ends in January 2031. Rodriguez would not run for reelection under the plan.

But the White House had rejected the proposal because the administration questioned the legitimacy of Maduro’s rule and accused him of overseeing a narco-terrorist state.

Maduro earlier this week said Venezuela was open to negotiating an agreement with the United States to combat drug trafficking and work with Washington on promoting U.S. further investment in the Venezuelan oil industry. Trump said Maduro was recently offered chances to surrender but declined.

Rubio held a long phone conversation on Saturday with Rodriguez, who was sworn into office following Maduro’s capture, Trump said.

“If we just left, it has zero chance of ever coming back. We’ll run it properly. We’ll run it professionally,” Trump said. “We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world going in, invest billions and billions of dollars. … And the biggest beneficiary are going to be the people of Venezuela.”

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said Maduro “F’d around and found out.” He added adversaries of the U.S. should “remain on notice” that “America can project our will anywhere, anytime.”

“Welcome to 2026,” Hegseth said. “Under President Trump, America is back.”

Venezuela’s opposition says the rightful president is the exiled politician Edmundo González, an ally of opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.

Trump said he wasn’t ready to commit to a certain leader but pledged his administration has to remain “very involved” in Venezuela.

“We can’t take a chance of letting somebody else run it — just take over where (Maduro) left,” Trump said.

AP writers Darlene Superville in Palm Springs, Fla., Matthew Lee in Washington, Kanis Leung in Hong Kong, Sylvie Corbet in Paris, and Elise Morton in London contributed reporting.

By JILL LAWLESS and REBECCA SANTANA, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a lightning military strike, the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and spirited them out of the country to face justice in the United States.

Now President Donald Trump says the U.S. is “going to run” Venezuela until a transition of power can take place, but it’s not clear what that will mean on the ground in the South American country.

The overnight operation left Venezuela reeling, with its leadership uncertain and details of casualties and the impact on its military still to emerge. Much is still unknown about how the U.S. ouster of Maduro will ricochet across the country and the region.

Here’s what we know — and what we don’t.

Rising US pressure, then an overnight attack

Explosions rang out and low-flying aircraft swept through Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, early Saturday. At least seven blasts were heard in an attack that lasted less than 30 minutes. The targets appeared to include military infrastructure.

Venezuelan ruling party leader Nahum Fernández said Maduro and Flores were captured at their home within the Ft. Tiuna military installation outside Caracas.

Venezuelan officials said people had been killed, but the scale of casualties was unclear.

The attack followed months of escalating pressure by the Trump administration, which has built up naval forces in the waters off South America and since early September has carried out deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean. Late last month, the CIA carried out a drone strike at a docking area alleged to have been used by drug cartels.

Trump says the US will run Venezuela, but how is unclear

Trump said during a news conference Saturday the U.S. would run the country and gestured to officials arrayed behind him, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said they’d be the ones doing it “for a period of time.”

Trump claimed the American presence was already in place, although across Venezuela’s capital there were no signs that the U.S. had taken control of the government or military forces.

Trump claimed that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had been sworn in as president shortly before he spoke to reporters and added she had spoken with Rubio.

“She is essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again. Very simple,” Trump said.

But during a televised address after Trump’s news conference, Rodriquez made no mention of talking to Rubio, of taking over the presidency or of cooperating with the U.S. State television has not shown a swearing-in ceremony and during her address, a ticker at the bottom of the screen identified her as the vice president.

Instead, she demanded the U.S. free Maduro, called him the country’s rightful leader and said what was happening to Venezuela “is an atrocity that violates international law.”

Rodriquez left open the door for dialogue with the U.S., while seeking to calm ruling party supporters.

“Here, we have a government with clarity, and I repeat and repeat again … we are willing to have respectful relations,” she said, referring to the Trump administration. “It is the only thing we will accept for a type of relationship after having attacked (Venezuela).”

Armed individuals and uniformed members of a civilian militia took to the streets of a Caracas neighborhood long considered a stronghold of the ruling party. But in other areas of the city, the streets remained empty hours after the attack. Parts of the city remained without power, but vehicles moved freely.

Trump offered no details on what U.S. leadership in Venezuela would mean or specify whether it would involve more military involvement.

The State Department did not immediately respond to questions about how the U.S. would run Venezuela, what authority it would use to administer it or whether it would involve any American personnel — either civilian or military — on the ground in Caracas or other areas of Venezuela.

The future of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure

Trump mentioned the country’s oil infrastructure repeatedly during the news conference. He suggested there would be a substantial U.S. role in Venezuela’s oil industry, saying that U.S. oil companies would go in and fix the broken infrastructure.

And Trump said the U.S. would use revenues from oil sales to pay for running the country.

“We’re going to get reimbursed for everything that we spend,” he said.

The US charges against Maduro

According to an indictment made public Saturday, Maduro is charged alongside his wife, his son and three others. Maduro is indicted on four counts: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Authorities allege powerful and violent drug trafficking organizations, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua gang, worked directly with the Venezuelan government and then sent profits to high-ranking officials who helped and protected them in exchange.

It was not immediately clear when Maduro and his wife would make their first court appearance in New York or where they would be detained once in the U.S.

How the US operation played out

Trump gave some details of the operation during a Saturday morning interview on “Fox and Friends,” and he and Caine went into more depth during the news conference.

Trump said a few U.S. members of the operation were injured but he believed no one was killed.

He said Maduro was “highly guarded” in a presidential palace akin to a “fortress” and he tried to get to a safe room but wasn’t able to get there in time.

Trump said U.S. forces practiced the operation ahead of time on a replica building, and the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights in Caracas,” although he didn’t detail how they accomplished that.

Caine said the mission had been “meticulously planned” for months, relying on work by the U.S. intelligence community to find Maduro and detail how he moved, lived, ate and what he wore.

The mission involved more than 150 aircraft launched across the Western Hemisphere, Caine said. Helicopters came under fire as they approached “the target area,” he said, and responded with “overwhelming force.”

Questions over legality

The U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and the legal implications of the strike under U.S. law were not immediately clear.

The Trump administration maintains that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela and claims he has effectively turned Venezuela into a criminal enterprise at the service of drug traffickers and terrorist groups.

Mike Lee, a U.S. senator from Utah, said on X that the action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”

But some Democrats were more critical.

Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said in a statement, “President Trump’s unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro — however terrible he is — is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere.”

How opposition leader Machado figures in Trump’s plans

Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado had intended to run against Maduro in the 2024 presidential election, but the government barred her from running for office. She went into hiding and wasn’t seen for nearly a year.

Trump said Saturday that he hadn’t been in touch with Machado and said it would be “very tough” for her to lead Venezuela.

“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,” Trump said.

Lawless reported from London. Associated Press Writer Danica Kirka in London contributed to this story.

By BEN FINLEY and KONSTANTIN TOROPIN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Coast Guard said Friday it’s still searching for people in the eastern Pacific Ocean who had jumped off alleged drug-smuggling boats when the U.S. military attacked the vessels days earlier, diminishing the likelihood that anyone survived.

Search efforts began Tuesday afternoon after the military notified the Coast Guard that survivors were in the water about 400 miles southwest of the border between Mexico and Guatemala, the maritime service said in a statement.

The Coast Guard dispatched a plane from Sacramento to search an area covering more than 1,000 miles, while issuing an urgent warning to ships nearby. The agency said it coordinated more than 65 hours of search efforts, working with other countries as well as civilian ships and boats in the area.

The weather during that time has included 9-foot seas and 40-knot winds. The U.S. has not said how many people jumped into the water, and, if they are not found, how far the death toll may rise from the Trump administration’s monthslong campaign of blowing up small boats accused of transporting drugs in the region.

The U.S. military said earlier this week that it attacked three boats traveling along known narco-trafficking routes and they “had transferred narcotics between the three vessels prior to the strikes.” The military did not provide evidence to back up the claim.

U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the region, said three people were killed when the first boat was struck, while people in the other two boats jumped overboard and distanced themselves from the vessels before they were attacked.

The strikes occurred in a part of the eastern Pacific where the Navy doesn’t have any ships operating. Southern Command said it immediately notified the U.S. Coast Guard to activate search and rescue efforts for the people who jumped overboard before the other boats were hit.

Calling in the Coast Guard is notable because the military drew heavy scrutiny after U.S. forces killed the survivors of the first attack in early September with a follow-up strike to their disabled boat. Some Democratic lawmakers and legal experts said the military committed a crime, while the Trump administration and some Republican lawmakers say the follow-up strike was legal.

There have been other survivors of the boat strikes, including one for whom the Mexican Navy suspended a search in late October after four days. Two other survivors of a strike on a submersible vessel in the Caribbean Sea that same month were sent to their home countries — Ecuador and Colombia. Authorities in Ecuador later released the man, saying they had no evidence he committed a crime in the South American nation.

Under President Donald Trump’s direction, the U.S. military has been attacking boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific since early September. As of Friday, the number of known boat strikes is 35 and the number of people killed is at least 115, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration.

Trump has justified the boat strikes as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Along with the strikes, the Trump administration has built up military forces in the region as part of an escalating pressure campaign on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been charged with narco-terrorism in the United States.

There were a lot of defining political moments in 2025 that made the year stand out.

This week on MichMash, WDET’s Cheyna Roth and Gongwer News Service’s Zach Gorchow and Alethia Kasben discuss some major stories and look ahead to 2026.

Subscribe to MichMash on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

In this episode

• MichMash hosts’ top political moments of 2025
• The state of major races heading into 2026.
• What stories should we look out for in 2026?

Overview

Pluribus News politics journalist Reid Wilson said “Michigan is the ‘we matter’ state,” on MichMash last month. Zach echoes this, pointing out how things like the senate race has made “Michigan the epicenter of politics in the midterms in 2026.”  

Zach also spoke about the dynamics of the candidates.

“We’ve got the first legit Democratic primary for U.S. Senate since 1994. Three really strong, viable candidates. But then we’ve got on the Republican side, it appears they’ve consolidated support behind Mike Rogers. And for the most part, he’s just going to be waiting to see who emerges as the Democrat.” 

Beyond elections, Zach also has his eye on the Michigan legislature. He thinks recent inertia will continue because of Speaker Matt Hall’s intention to not get involved what he described as “small things”.

More from WDET:

• MichMash: What are earmarks? A breakdown of the 2026 state budget
• MichMash: Senator Peters discusses his decision not to run for reelection
• MichMash: Looking back on the state’s top political stories of 2024

And although there was an agreement after the budget was decided to focus on economic development, Alethia said those plans may be falling apart. “I think the House and Senate could come together and put together [the] top wants of both. It’s just a question of…is there the willingness to get that done, especially if this is more of a Governor Gretchen Whitmer priority and less of a legislative priority?” 

The Michigan legislature will come back to session by mid January 2026.  

Support the podcasts you love.

One-of-a-kind podcasts from WDET bring you engaging conversations, news you need to know and stories you love to hear.

Keep the conversations coming. Please make a gift today.

Give now »

More from MichMash

Looking back on Michigan’s top political stories of 2025

January 2, 2026

WDET’s Cheyna Roth and Gongwer News Service’s Zach Gorchow and Alethia Kasben discuss the major stories and look ahead to 2026.

Read More »

MichMash: Senator Peters discusses his decision not to run for reelection

December 26, 2025

In this weeks episode Senator Gary Peters shares why he is not running for reelection, plus
updates with the rank choice voting initiative

Read More »

MichMash: Congresswoman Haley Stevens makes her case for US Senate seat

December 19, 2025

In this episode, we sit down with Rep. Haley Stevens to discuss what makes her different from the other candidates.

Read More »

The post Looking back on Michigan’s top political stories of 2025 appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

Mary Sheffield, a political phenom whose rise began when she was elected to Detroit City Council at age 26, made history Sunday when she was sworn in as the city’s first woman mayor. 

The post Mayor Mary Sheffield reflects on leading Detroit and the road ahead appeared first on Detroit Metro Times.

A year ago, Zohran Mamdani was a backbench state assemblyman who had just launched a bid for New York City mayor that many saw as a long shot because of his unabashed left-wing politics.

But on Thursday afternoon, Mamdani was inaugurated as the city’s 112th mayor with a vow to “govern as a democratic socialist,” a sign that he sees his upset election victory as a mandate for his leftist affordability agenda, which has resonated with many New Yorkers reeling from skyrocketing costs of living.

“We will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what we believe. I was elected as a democratic socialist, and I will govern as a democratic socialist,” Mamdani, who at 34 is the city’s youngest mayor in more than a century, said in an inaugural address on the steps of City Hall to thunderous applause from thousands of supporters.

“I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.”

Mamdani, who’s also the city’s first Muslim mayor, delivered his speech after taking the oath office on a Koran held by his wife, graphic artist Rama Duwaji. The oath was administered by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who, like Mamdani, is a democratic socialist and is seen as a grandfather for the modern American left.

“All of us have heard that Zohran’s opponents have called the agenda that he campaigned on ‘radical, communistic,’ oh, and ‘absolutely unachievable’ — really?” Sanders said before administering the oath. “That’s not what we believe.”

Thursday’s public ceremony came after Mamdani officially was sworn in as mayor at midnight Wednesday during a private ceremony with his family.

Having promised to make the city more affordable for working-class communities, Mamdani is entering office with high expectations on his shoulders.

His mayoral campaign centered on three key promises: freeze rents for the city’s 2 million rent-stabilized tenants, make public buses free, and drastically expand fully subsidized child care so it covers every child in the city between 6 weeks and 5 years old.

Each of those pledges comes with its own set of serious challenges.

The bus and child care proposals are contingent on billions of dollars in new funding Mamdani wants to allocate from tax increases — which would need to be enacted by the state — on millionaires and corporations. Gov. Hochul, a more moderate Democrat who was seated on the dais behind Mamdani as he delivered his speech, has openly voiced skepticism about raising taxes this year, throwing a potential wrench into Mamdani’s core agenda.

Mamdani also faces myriad other challenges, including a looming city budget deficit and the responsibility of managing the NYPD, a department he has harshly criticized throughout his political career. Additionally, critics have voiced concern about potential negative fallout from higher taxes, such as an exodus of major business from New York.

But in his inaugural speech, Mamdani reaffirmed he remains committed to all of his agenda items, including taxing millionaires at a higher rate, and vowed not to water down his messaging or promises.

“I have been told that this is the occasion to reset expectations, that I should use this opportunity to encourage the people of New York to ask for little and expect even less. I will do no such thing,” he said. “The only expectation I seek to reset is that of small expectations.”

During Sanders’ speech, the inaugural ceremony crowd, which featured dozens of Mamdani supporters donning red Democratic Socialists of America beanies, erupted in a “Tax the rich!” chant.

Thousands more Mamdani supporters who crammed the streets around City Hall for an event his team billed a “block party” joined in on the same chant.

“We’ve got your back, we’ll move those establishment politicians, we’ll tax the corporations, we’ll get it done,” said Paul Nagle, a 67-year-old Chelsea resident.

Hochul declined to take questions after the event.

Asked how Hochul can be persuaded to back Mamdani’s taxation agenda, Sanders told the Daily News after the ceremony that continued public pressure is key. “I hope she’s heard from the people here and the people all over this country,” he said. “It is the right thing to do, and it is what the people want.”

Besides Hochul, Mamdani’s inaugural ceremony dais was a veritable who’s who of New York politics, featuring U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, ex-Mayor Bill de Blasio and several members of Congress, as well as key advisers to Mamdani, including his chief of staff Elle Bisgaard Church and First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose upset 2018 election to Congress was a harbinger of sorts for Mamdani’s defeat of ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in June’s Democratic mayoral primary, delivered the introductory speech at the inauguration. She suggested Mamdani’s election should serve as an inspiration for more left-wing electoral campaigns across the country.

“If we can make it here, we can make it anywhere,” she said.

Fresh off his inauguration, Mamdani got to work, appointing housing advocate Cea Weaver as his new tenant protection czar, and issuing a slate of executive orders that, among other things, directed his administration to identify more city government-owned land that can be used for affordable housing development.

He also held an evening press conference at an apartment building in Brooklyn, where he announced his administration will get involved in a bankruptcy case filed by Pinnacle Realty, a firm that has faced accusations of neglecting its buildings. Though he and his team provided few details, Mamdani said the purpose of his administration’s involvement in the case will be to seek relief for Pinnacle tenants facing hazardous living conditions.

Eric Adams, whose first and only mayoral term came to a close at midnight Wednesday, was also on the dais during Mamdani’s inauguration.

Having dumped his bid for reelection this fall under a cloud of controversy related to his federal corruption indictment, Adams was a thorn in Mamdani’s side on his way out of public service, taking a number of actions in the past few weeks directly aimed at stymieing the new mayor’s agenda.

Among other actions, Adams made last-minute appointments to the Rent Guidelines Board in an effort to at least temporarily block Mamdani’s promised rent freeze for stabilized tenants.

Despite the tensions, Mamdani offered Adams thanks during his inaugural speech, drawing boos from the crowd.

“He and I have had our share of disagreements, but I will always be touched that he chose me as the mayoral candidate that he would most want to be trapped with on an elevator,” Mamdani said, prompting Adams to chuckle.

Actor and comedian Richard Kind was among the revelers who attended Mamdani’s inauguration. He said he was excited for Mamdani to take over from Adams when asked if he thought the new mayor would be better than Adams.

“Anybody would be,” he said, “but especially Mamdani.”

By Jonathan Shorman, Stateline.org

After Missouri lawmakers passed a gerrymandered congressional map this fall, opponents submitted more than 300,000 signatures seeking to force a statewide vote on whether to overturn the map. But Republican state officials say they will use the map in the meantime.

Missouri courts now appear likely to weigh in.

“If we need to continue to litigate to enforce our constitutional rights, we will,” said Richard von Glahn, a progressive activist who leads People Not Politicians, which is leading the campaign opposing the gerrymandered map.

As some states engage in an extraordinary redraw of congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, state courts may decide the fate of the new maps. President Donald Trump has pushed Republican state lawmakers to gerrymander their states’ congressional maps, prompting Democratic state lawmakers to respond in kind.

Nationwide, state judges are poised to play a pivotal role in adjudicating legal challenges to the maps, which have been drafted to maximize partisan advantage for either Republicans or Democrats, depending on the state. Maps are typically only redrawn once a decade following the census.

While some state courts have long heard map-related lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court has all but taken federal courts out of the business of reviewing redrawn maps this year. On Dec. 4, a majority of the court allowed Texas’ new map, which seeks to secure five more U.S. House seats for Republicans, to proceed. A federal lawsuit against California’s new gerrymandered map, drawn to favor Democrats, hasn’t reached the high court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s brief, unsigned majority decision voiced concern about inserting federal courts into an “active primary campaign,” though Texas’s primary election will occur in March. Critics of the court’s decision have said it effectively forecloses federal challenges to this year’s gerrymanders. The justices could also issue a decision next year that makes it more difficult to challenge maps as racially discriminatory.

State courts are taking center stage after gerrymandering opponents have spent decades encouraging them to play a more active role in policing maps that had been drawn for partisan advantage. Those efforts accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 limited the power of federal courts to block such maps.

“Basically, every one of the 50 states has something in its constitution that could be used to constrain partisan gerrymandering,” said Samuel Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.

State constitutions, which are interpreted by state supreme courts, typically have language that echoes the right to freedom of speech and association found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Wang said. They also include a right to equal protection under the law, similar to the 14th Amendment.

Some state constitutions guarantee free and fair elections, language that doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution. Thirty states have some form of a constitutional requirement for free elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

At least 10 state supreme courts have found that state courts can decide cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, according to a 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

So far this year, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah have adopted new congressional maps. New maps also appear possible in Florida, Maryland and Virginia. A handful of other states — Alabama, Louisiana, New York and North Dakota — may have to change their maps depending on the outcome of court cases.

Some of those new or potential maps could face legal obstacles. Florida, New York and Ohio all have state supreme courts that have previously found problems with partisan gerrymanders. Maryland Democrats have so far not moved forward with a gerrymander, in part because of fears of an adverse decision from the state Supreme Court.

Four state supreme courts — including in Missouri — have determined that they cannot review partisan gerrymandering claims, though state courts may still consider challenges on other grounds, such as whether the districts are compact or contiguous.

In Missouri’s case, courts could also clear the way for a referendum vote over the new map, which is intended to force out U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who has represented Kansas City in Congress for the past two decades. Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight congressional districts.

The map already faces a bevy of lawsuits, most notably over whether state officials must count some 103,000 referendum signatures gathered before the governor signed the map into law; at least 106,000 signatures are needed to send the map to voters.

Opponents of the new map have also filed lawsuits asserting the Missouri Constitution prevents redistricting without new census data and that an area of Kansas City was simultaneously placed into two separate congressional districts.

Missouri Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ decision this month (relying on an opinion from Missouri Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway) to implement the new congressional map, despite a submitted referendum petition, is expected to become the latest legal flashpoint. Opponents of the map argue it is now paused under state law.

Hoskins spokesperson Rachael Dunn said in a statement to Stateline that local election officials have until late July to verify referendum signatures — months after candidate filing ends March 31 and days before the Aug. 4 primary election. At that point, blocking the new map would be all but impossible, even if map opponents have gathered enough signatures to force a vote.

“Once signatures are all verified, the Secretary will certify the referendum based on constitutionality and verification,” Dunn wrote.

Hanaway’s office didn’t respond to questions.

Breaking out of lockstep

As federal courts limit their review of gerrymandering because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, some state supreme courts are reluctant to wade into the issue because of a practice called “lockstepping.”

State supreme courts often interpret their state constitutions in line with — or in lockstep with — how the U.S. Supreme Court views similar language in the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to limit partisan gerrymandering, some state supreme courts have also declined to impose limits.

Gerrymandering opponents have used a variety of arguments over the years to try to prod state supreme courts out of lockstep. They have emphasized differences in wording between state constitutions and the federal one, and provisions in state constitutions — such as the free elections requirement — not found in the U.S. Constitution.

Sometimes these arguments work — and sometimes they don’t. The North Carolina Supreme Court in 2022 ruled against partisan gerrymandering. But after two Republicans were elected as justices that fall, the court reversed itself months later.

“Across the country, we have seen advocates turn to state supreme courts, and state courts in general, for state constitutional arguments against gerrymandering or voter suppression more broadly. And it’s been met with mixed success,” said Sharon Brett, a University of Kansas associate professor of law. In 2022 as litigation director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, she unsuccessfully argued a case before the state’s high court challenging Kansas’ congressional map.

In states where legislatures draw congressional maps, some lawmakers argue that state constitutions shouldn’t be interpreted to curb legislative authority over mapmaking. Court-imposed limits amount to violations of the traditional separation of powers, they say, with the judiciary overstepping its authority to interfere in politics.

“We expect them to be nonpartisan. We expect them to be unbiased. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to read the constitution and to protect or at least respect the separation of powers,” said Utah Republican state Rep. Casey Snider, speaking of Utah courts during a floor speech earlier this month.

In Utah, state courts waded through a yearslong legal battle over whether state lawmakers must adopt a non-gerrymandered map. After the Republican-controlled legislature repealed and replaced an independent redistricting process, the Utah Supreme Court last year ruled lawmakers had violated the state constitution.

A Utah district court judge in November then adopted a congressional map that will likely lead next year to the election of a Democrat. The state’s four congressional seats are currently all held by Republicans.

“What we would like is them to redistrict based on population — fairly,” Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, said of state lawmakers.

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox called the Utah legislature into special session earlier in December to respond to the judge’s decision. Lawmakers pushed back candidate filing deadlines in hopes that an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court will result in a decision overturning the judge’s adopted map.

They also passed a resolution condemning the judiciary.

Constitutional concerns

As the Indiana legislature weighed a gerrymandered map to boost Republicans this month, some lawmakers were reluctant to constrain state courts. Democrats currently hold two of the state’s nine congressional districts.

The GOP-controlled Indiana Senate voted down the map in a major setback to Trump’s national redistricting push. The vote came after a floor debate where opponents raised concerns about limiting court involvement; the legislation included a provision sending any legal challenge directly to the Indiana Supreme Court, bypassing a jury trial.

Indiana Republican state Sen. Greg Walker said the measure violated the state constitution, which guarantees an “inviolate” right to a jury trial in all civil cases. “In legal terms, ‘inviolate’ has the implication of being sacred, as opposed to being just a piece of the law,” Walker said on the floor.

State Sen. Mike Gaskill, a Republican who sponsored the map, said during a speech that Indiana residents would benefit from a quick process to resolve legal challenges. “Both sides, in any case, want them to be settled quickly so that they don’t cause chaos and interruptions in the elections process,” he said.

If the map had passed, opponents would have likely attacked the measure using a provision of the Indiana Constitution that requires “free and equal” elections.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

No sooner had John F. Kennedy’s granddaughter died of leukemia at age 35, than President Trump got busy dusting off previous social media posts to cast shade at her bereaved family.

Though he didn’t mention the late Tatiana Schlossberg by name or reference her death, Trump harvested screenshots of his supporters’ posts belittling the famous family after his newly handpicked board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts voted to tack the president’s name onto the venue.

The Kennedy family announced Schlossberg’s death on Tuesday from a rare form of leukemia with the simple message, “Our beautiful Tatiana passed away this morning. She will always be in our hearts.”

Schlossberg had written poignantly about her diagnosis and treatment in The New Yorker in November, a powerful account of a year-long journey that paralleled her cousin Robert Kennedy Jr.’s attack on the nation’s public health system as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As condolences poured in, Trump, reportedly miffed at the raft of performance cancellations in the wake of the board’s Dec. 18 name change, pulled supporters’ social media posts out of mothballs and onto Truth Social. He re-upped such gems as, “The Kennedy Family have LONG neglected the Kennedy Center, btw. They don’t raise money for it. They never show up. And the only Kennedy who has been there recently is a member of Trump’s cabinet,” and, “The Trumps have always been supporters of the arts. The Kennedys are supporters of the Kennedys.”

The Kennedys themselves were especially vocal during the public backlash against the institution’s name change, given that Congress had dedicated it as a living memorial to JFK after the president’s 1963 assassination.

CNN’s Jake Tapper and others led the excoriation charge against Trump’s posts.

“In the early afternoon, ET, the Kennedy family announced that JFK’s granddaughter Tatiana Schlossberg had died from cancer,” the anchor wrote on X. “A few hours later, President Trump re-posted some social media garbage attacking the Kennedy family.”

Barely a month earlier, Trump had blamed movie director Rob Reiner for his own murder.

“On a day when the Kennedy family is grappling with an unimaginable personal loss, Donald Trump chose to use his platform to launch petty, vindictive attacks against them,” Meidas Touch wrote on X. “Yet another stunning display of cruelty and utter lack of basic human decency.”

With News Wire Services

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday that the Constitution remains a sturdy pillar for the country, a message that comes after a tumultuous year in the nation’s judicial system with pivotal Supreme Court decisions on the horizon.

Roberts said the nation’s founding documents remain “firm and unshaken,” a reference to a century-old quote from President Calvin Coolidge. “True then; true now,” Roberts wrote in his annual letter to the judiciary.

The letter comes after a year in which legal scholars and Democrats raised fears of a possible constitutional crisis as Republican President Donald Trump’s supporters pushed back against rulings that slowed his far-reaching conservative agenda.

Roberts weighed in at one point in March, issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who had ruled against him in a case over the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members.

The chief justice’s Wednesday letter was largely focused on the nation’s history, including an early 19th-century case establishing the principle that Congress shouldn’t remove judges over contentious rulings.

He also called on judges to “continue to decide the cases before us according to our oath, doing equal right to the poor and to the rich, and performing all of our duties faithfully and impartially under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

While the Trump administration faced pushback in the lower courts, it has scored a series of some two dozen wins on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The court’s conservative majority has allowed Trump to move ahead for now with banning transgender people from the military, clawing back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, moving aggressively on immigration and firing the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

The court also handed Trump a few defeats over the last year, including in his push to deploy the National Guard to U.S. cities.

Other pivotal issues are ahead for the high court in 2026, including arguments over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship and a ruling on whether he can unilaterally impose tariffs on hundreds of countries.

Roberts’ letter contained few references to those issues. It opened with a history of the seminal 1776 pamphlet “Common Sense,” written by Thomas Paine, a “recent immigrant to Britain’s North American colonies,” and closed with Coolidge’s encouragement to “turn for solace” to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence “amid all the welter of partisan politics.”

By FATIMA HUSSEIN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. on Wednesday imposed sanctions on four firms operating in Venezuela’s oil sector and designated four additional oil tankers, which the U.S. accuses of being part of a shadow fleet serving Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government, as blocked property.

The action is part of the Trump administration’s monthslong pressure campaign on Maduro. U.S. forces also have seized two oil tankers off Venezuela’s coast, are pursuing another and have conducted a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

A set of strikes announced Wednesday increased the death toll from the attacks to at least 110 people since early September. And in a new escalation marking the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil, the CIA carried out a drone strike last week at a docking area believed to have been used by drug cartels.

The latest sanctions from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control target ships called Nord Star, Lunar Tide, Rosalind and Della, and their registered ownership companies.

“Today’s sanctions continue President Trump’s pressure campaign on Maduro and his cronies,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said in a statement. “The Trump Administration is committed to disrupting the network that props up Maduro and his illegitimate regime.”

The sanctions are meant to deny the firms and tankers access to any property or financial assets held in the U.S. People, banks and financial institutions that violate that restriction expose themselves to sanctions or enforcement actions.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States “will not allow the illegitimate Maduro regime to profit from exporting oil while it floods the United States with deadly drugs.”

President Donald Trump has announced a “blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers coming in and out of the South American country. He has demanded that Venezuela return assets that it seized from U.S. oil companies years ago and has said Maduro’s government is using oil profits to fund drug trafficking and other crimes.

“The Treasury Department will continue to implement President Trump’s campaign of pressure on Maduro’s regime,” Bessent said.

By JOSH FUNK and DIDI TANG

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Farmers are now learning how much aid they can expect to receive from a $12 billion package that President Donald Trump announced earlier this month.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture released the figures Wednesday for how much aid per acre farmers can plan on for each row crop. The details arrived after most farmers have already met with their bankers to arrange financing for next year’s crops and placed orders for the seed and fertilizer they will need. But officials have promised that the payments should arrive by the end of February.

Soybean farmers have been hit especially hard by Trump’s trade war with China, which stopped buying any American crops after Trump announced his tariffs this spring. China is the world’s largest buyer of soybeans. This aid package is expected to help farmers weather the trade disruptions until China buys more soybeans under an agreement announced in October and until provisions of Trump’s massive budget bill take effect later this year.

Soybean farmers will get $30.88 per acre while corn farmers will receive $44.36 per acre. Another crop hit hard when China stopped buying was sorghum, and those farmers will get $48.11 per acre. The amounts are based on a USDA formula on the cost of production.

Farmers say they need more buyers for their crops

But farmers say the aid won’t solve all their problems as they continue to deal with the soaring costs of fertilizer, seeds and labor that make it hard to turn a profit right now. Some agricultural trade groups have said they worry that thousands of farmers could go out of business, but others have said they believe most farmers have the financial resources and equity needed to survive.

Kentucky soybean farmer Caleb Ragland, who was president of the American Soybean Association until recently, said the aid is “a Band-Aid on a deep wound. We need competition and opportunities in the market to make our future brighter.”

The President of the National Corn Growers Association Jed Bower also urged the Trump administration to focus on cultivating additional uses for their crops. Farmers will benefit from having more buyers whether it is for ethanol and animal feed at home or for international markets.

“Corn growers have been sounding the alarm about the fact that farmers have been faced with multiple consecutive years of low corn prices and high input costs,” Bower said. “While this financial assistance is helpful and welcomed, we urgently need the administration and Congress to develop markets in the United States and abroad that will provide growers with more long-term economic certainty.”

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that is the goal and promised to continue working to open new markets while strengthening the safety net for farmers.

Minnesota Soybean Growers Association President Darin Johnson said the aid number for soybeans fell short of what farmers had been hoping for, so more help could be needed, though this package will help.

Most farmers remain steadfast supporters of Trump even after the disruptions caused by the trade war. They generally support many of his other policies and believe they will get a better trade deal in the end.

White House and farmers encouraged by China’s purchases

These aid payments will add up to $11 billion for row crop farmers who raise corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum and other crops. Another $1 billion has been set aside for specialty crops and sugar, but the administration hasn’t released any details of aid for those crops.

After Trump met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October, the White House said Beijing had promised to buy at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans by the end of the calendar year, plus 25 million metric tons a year in each of the next three years. Officials have said China is on track to meet the 12 million metric ton goal by the end of February.

As of Dec. 18, China had bought about 6 million metric tons of soybeans, according to the latest USDA’s weekly report. Separately, the federal agency reported that China since then bought at least three more batches totaling 600,000 metric tons.

Beijing has yet to confirm any commitment to buying 12 million metric tons of soybeans for this season, but the Chinese embassy in Washington said earlier this month that “agricultural trade cooperation between China and the United States is proceeding in an orderly manner.”

However, the recent increase in international purchases is encouraging to farmers, said Tim Lust, CEO of the National Sorghum Producers, who has seen more than 1 million metric tons of sorghum purchased in just the past few weeks. Like soybeans, more than half of the sorghum crop is exported each year with China traditionally being the biggest buyer.

The aid payments will be capped at $155,000 per farmer or entity, and only farms that make less than $900,000 in adjusted gross income will be eligible. During the first Trump administration, a number of large farms found ways around the payment limits and collected millions.

The USDA says the average size of the 1.88 million farms nationwide was 466 acres last year, but many farmers are much larger than that as larger operations have continued to buy up neighboring farms over time.

By BEN FINLEY

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military said Wednesday it struck three more boats that were allegedly smuggling drugs, killing three people while others jumped overboard and may have survived.

The statement by U.S. Southern Command, which oversees South America, did not reveal where the attacks occurred. Previous attacks have been in the Caribbean Sea and in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

A video posted by Southern Command on social media shows the boats traveling in a close formation, which is unusual, and the military said they were in a convoy along known narco-trafficking routes and “had transferred narcotics between the three vessels prior to the strikes.” The military did not provide evidence to back up the claim.

The military said three people were killed when the first boat was struck, while people in the other two boats jumped overboard and distanced themselves from the vessels before they were attacked. Southern Command said it immediately notified the U.S. Coast Guard to activate search and rescue efforts.

The attacks occurred on Tuesday. Southern Command’s statement did not say whether those who jumped off the boats were rescued.

Calling in the Coast Guard is notable because the U.S. military drew heavy scrutiny after U.S. forces killed the survivors of an attack in early September with a follow-up strike to their disabled boat. Some Democratic lawmakers and legal experts said the military committed a crime, while the Trump administration and some Republican lawmakers say the follow-up strike was legal.

The latest attacks bring the total number of known boat strikes to 33 and the number of people killed to at least 110 since early September, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Along with the strikes, the Trump administration has built up military forces in the region as part of an escalating pressure campaign on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been charged with narco-terrorism in the United States.

Meanwhile, the CIA was behind a drone strike last week at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels, according to two people familiar with details of the operation who requested anonymity to discuss the classified matter.

It was the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. began strikes in September, a significant escalation in the administration’s pressure campaign on Maduro’s government.

By STEPHEN GROVES

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has ended the lease agreement for three public golf courses in Washington, a move that offers President Donald Trump an additional opportunity to put his stamp on another piece of the nation’s capital.

The National Links Trust, the nonprofit that has operated Washington’s three public courses on federal land for the last five years, said Wednesday that the Department of the Interior had terminated its 50-year lease agreement. The Interior Department said it was terminating the lease because the nonprofit had not implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

While it was unclear what the Trump administration’s plans are for the golf courses, the move gives Trump, whose private company has developed numerous golf courses in the U.S. and abroad, the chance to remake links overlooking the Potomac River and in Rock Creek Park and a site that is part of Black golf history.

Officials for the National Links Trust said in a statement that they were “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended their management of the courses. They said $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in their tenure managing the courses. The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

“While this termination is a major setback, we remain stubbornly hopeful that a path forward can be found that preserves affordable and accessible public golf in the nation’s capital for generations to come,” the officials added.

The Department of the Interior’s decision comes as Trump rebrands civic spaces in Washington and deploys National Guard members to the streets for public safety. The Kennedy Center added Trump’s name this month after the center’s board of trustees — made up of Trump appointees — voted to change the name of the performing arts space designated by Congress as a memorial to John F. Kennedy. Trump is also in the midst of a construction project to build a ballroom on the White House’s East Wing, and he has put his name on the U.S. Institute of Peace.

By ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Jan. 6. riot at the U.S. Capitol “does not happen” without Donald Trump, former special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers earlier this month in characterizing the Republican president as the “most culpable and most responsible person” in the criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee released on Wednesday a transcript and video of a closed-door interview Smith gave about two investigations of Trump. The document shows how Smith during the course of a daylong deposition repeatedly defended the basis for pursuing indictments against Trump and vigorously rejected Republican suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated.

“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit,” Smith said, bristling at a question about whether his investigations were meant to prevent Trump from reclaiming the presidency in 2024.

“So in terms of why we would pursue a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in any way meant to hamper him in the presidential election,” he added.

The Dec. 17 deposition was conducted privately despite Smith’s request to testify publicly. The release of the transcript and video of the interview, so far Smith’s only appearance on Capitol Hill since leaving his special counsel position last January, adds to the public understanding of the decision-making behind two of the most consequential Justice Department investigations in recent history.

Trump was indicted on charges of conspiring to undo the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, and of willfully retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both cases were abandoned after Trump’s 2024 election win, with Smith citing Justice Department policy against the indictment of a sitting president.

Smith repeatedly made clear his belief that the evidence gathered against Trump was strong enough to sustain a conviction. Part of the strength of the Jan. 6 case, Smith said, was the extent to which it relied on the testimony of Trump allies and supporters who cooperated with the investigation.

“We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former congressman, who was going to be an elector for President Trump, who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal,” Smith said. “Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party.”

Accounts from Republicans willing to stand up against the falsehood that the election had been stolen “even though it could mean trouble for them” created what Smith described as the “most powerful” evidence against Trump.

When it came to the Capitol riot itself, Smith said, the evidence showed that Trump “caused it and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him.”

Asked whether there was evidence that Trump had instructed supporters to riot at the Capitol, Smith said that Trump in the weeks leading to the insurrection got “people to believe fraud claims that weren’t true.”

“He made false statements to State legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to January 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them and then he directed them to the Capitol,” Smith said.

“Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that without question in my mind endangered the life of his own Vice President. And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.”

Some of the deposition focused on Republican anger at revelations that the Smith team had obtained, and analyzed, phone records of GOP lawmakers who were in contact with Trump on Jan. 6. Smith defended the maneuver as lawful and by-the-book, and suggested that outrage over the tactic should be directed at Trump and not his team of prosecutors.

“Well, I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump. These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators.”

The communications between Trump and Republican supporters in Congress were an important component of the case, Smith said. He cited an interview his office did with Mark Meadows in which Trump’s then-chief of staff referenced that Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and current chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had been in touch with the White House on the afternoon of the riot.

“And what I recall was Meadows stating that ‘I’ve never seen Jim Jordan scared of anything,’ and the fact that we were in this different situation now where people were scared really made it clear that what was going on at the Capitol could not be mistaken for anything other than what it was,” Smith said.

Smith was also asked whether his team evaluated former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s explosive claim that Trump that grabbed at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to let him go to the U.S. Capitol building after a rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021.

Smith told lawmakers that investigators interviewed the officer who was in the car, “who said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol,” but the officer’s version of events “was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand,” Smith said.

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

By HALLIE GOLDEN, Associated Press

President Donald Trump’s administration announced on Tuesday that it’s freezing child care funds to Minnesota after a series of fraud schemes in recent years.

Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O’Neill said on the social platform X that the step is in response to “blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pushed back in a post on X, saying fraudsters are a serious issue that the state has spent years cracking down on but that this move is part of “Trump’s long game.”

“He’s politicizing the issue to defund programs that help Minnesotans,” Walz said.

O’Neil called out a right-wing influencer who had posted a video Friday claiming he found that day care centers operated by Somali residents in Minneapolis had committed up to $100 million in fraud. O’Neill said he has demanded Walz submit an audit of these centers that includes attendance records, licenses, complaints, investigations and inspections.

Earlier coverage: Video alleging fraud in Minnesota draws federal response; state casts doubt on it

“We have turned off the money spigot and we are finding the fraud,” O’Neill said.

The announcement comes one day after U.S. Homeland Security officials were in Minneapolis conducting a fraud investigation by going to unidentified businesses and questioning workers.

There have been years of fraud investigation that began with the $300 million scheme at the nonprofit Feeding Our Future, for which 57 defendants in Minnesota have been convicted. Prosecutors said the organization was at the center of the country’s largest COVID-19-related fraud scam, when defendants exploited a state-run, federally funded program intended to provide food for children.

A federal prosecutor alleged earlier in December that half or more of the roughly $18 billion in federal funds that supported 14 programs in Minnesota since 2018 may have been stolen. Most of the defendants are Somali Americans, they said.

O’Neill, who is serving as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also said in the social media post Tuesday that payments across the U.S. through the Administration for Children and Families, an agency within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, will now require “justification and a receipt or photo evidence” before money is sent. They have also launched a fraud-reporting hotline and email address, he said.

The Administration for Children and Families provides $185 million in childcare funds annually to Minnesota, according to Assistant Secretary Alex Adams.

“That money should be helping 19,000 American children, including toddlers and infants,” he said in a video posted on X. “Any dollar stolen by fraudsters is stolen from those children.”

Adams said he spoke Monday with the director of Minnesota’s child care services office and she wasn’t able to say “with confidence whether those allegations of fraud are isolated or whether there’s fraud stretching statewide.”

Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee, has said fraud will not be tolerated and his administration “will continue to work with federal partners to ensure fraud is stopped and fraudsters are caught.”

Walz has said an audit due by late January should give a better picture of the extent of the fraud. He said his administration is taking aggressive action to prevent additional fraud. He has long defended how his administration responded.

Minnesota’s most prominent Somali American, Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, has urged people not to blame an entire community for the actions of a relative few.

By SAFIYAH RIDDLE and CHARLOTTE KRAMON

Hundreds of people from South Sudan may be able to live and work in the United States legally, while a federal judge on Tuesday weighs whether President Donald Trump’s move to revoke temporary protected status for immigrants from the East African country was illegal.

The termination was set to take effect on January 6, 2026, at which point the roughly 300 South Sudanese nationals living and working in the U.S. under the program — or who otherwise have pending applications — would be eligible for deportation.

Civil rights groups sued the Department of Homeland Security in late December, writing in a complaint that the change violated administrative procedure and was unconstitutional because it aimed to “significantly reduce the number of non-white and non-European immigrants in the United States” on the basis of race.

The court order written by U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts temporarily bars the federal government from initiating deportation while the final decision is pending.

“These significant and far-reaching consequences not only deserve, but require, a full and careful consideration of the merits by the Court,” Kelley wrote, adding that the changes could potentially cause irreversible harm to the East African migrants.

DHS blasted the decision in a statement on Tuesday.

“Yet another lawless and activist order from the federal judiciary who continues to usurp the President’s constitutional authority. Under the previous administration Temporary Protected Status was abused to allow violent terrorists, criminals, and national security threats into our nation,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote.

Temporary protected status is granted to foreign nationals from countries devastated by war or natural disaster. Successful applicants must already reside in the U.S. and pass extensive background checks and vetting through DHS.

Without providing evidence, McLaughlin claimed there is “renewed peace in South Sudan” and pointed to “their demonstrated commitment to ensuring the safe reintegration of returning nationals, and improved diplomatic relations.”

“Now is the right time to conclude what was always intended to be a temporary designation,” McLaughlin wrote.

According to U.N. experts, “Years of neglect have fragmented government and opposition forces alike,” the panel said, “resulting in a patchwork of uniformed soldiers, defectors and armed community defense groups.”

South Sudanese people were made eligible for temporary protected status in 2011. The East African’s embattled government still struggles to deliver many of the basic services of a state. Years of conflict have left the country heavily reliant on aid, which has been hit hard by the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts in foreign assistance. Many South Sudanese people face hunger, and this year a hunger monitor said parts of conflict-hit South Sudan were heading toward famine conditions.

“I don’t know how DHS can say with a straight face that it’s safe for South South Sudanese TPS holders to return to South Sudan when their own State Department, albeit another government agency, says is not safe to travel there,” said Dorian Spence, litigation coordinator Communities United for Status and Protection, one of the groups that filed the December 22 lawsuit.

“This is only one prong in their multi-pronged attack into making America whiter,” Spence added, noting Trump’s willingness to accept white South Africans as refugees.

Critics of the Trump administration in South Sudan said that the move was political retaliation for South Sudan’s decision to stop accepting deportees from the U.S. as part of a program to deport migrants to third countries. At least eight men were deported to South Sudan from the U.S. earlier in the year.

“This has angered the Trump administration (and) the Trump administration has reached this decision now, where it is ending protections available for South Sudanese who fled the war,” he said.

The Trump administration has attempted to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the U.S. and work legally, including ending temporary status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and Haitians who were granted protection under President Joe Biden.

Protected status for immigrants from Ethiopia, Cameroon, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma, Syria, Nicaragua and Honduras is also in jeopardy.

Kramon contributed to this report from Atlanta and Riddle from New York.

ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast (AP) — The United States and Ivory Coast signed a health deal Tuesday requiring the U.S. to commit $480 million to the West African nation’s health sector as part of “America First” global health funding pacts that mirror the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

The signing in Ivory Coast’s capital of Abidjan covers areas such as HIV, malaria, maternal and child health, and global health security. It is the latest agreement the U.S. has entered with more than a dozen African countries, most of them hit by U.S. aid cuts, including Ivory Coast.

U.S. aid cuts have crippled health systems across the developing world, including in Africa, where many countries relied on the funding for crucial programs, including those responding to outbreaks of disease.

The new health pact is based on the principle of shared responsibility with Ivory Coast committing to provide up to $292 million by 2030, representing 60% of the overall commitment, according to Ivorian Prime Minister Robert Beugré Mambé.

U.S. Ambassador to Ivory Coast Jessica Davis Ba said the U.S. government is moving “beyond the traditional aid approach toward a model focused on trade, innovation, and shared prosperity.”

“Today, our bilateral cooperation is entering a new phase. We are implementing the America First global health strategy,” the ambassador said.

The Trump administration says the new “America First” global health funding agreements are meant to increase self-sufficiency and eliminate what it says are ideology and waste from international assistance. The deals replace a patchwork of previous health agreements under the now-dismantled United States Agency for International Development.

In Ivory Coast, USAID had invested $115 million to support sectors such as health, education and aid for refugees mostly fleeing violence in neighboring Sahel states.

Analysts say the new approach to global health aligns with President Donald Trump’s pattern of dealing with other nations transactionally, using direct talks with foreign governments to promote his agenda abroad.