Gov. Tim Walz has put the Minnesota National Guard on notice in the event of unrest following the fatal shooting of a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.

Walz says he’s issued a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard in the event of civil unrest. It’s a first step that alerts 13,000 guard members that they may need to be called upon in the event of an emergency.

Addressing reporters on the situation during a Wednesday briefing, Walz said he supported the rights of demonstrators but urged them to engage in peaceful protest.

“What we’re seeing is the consequences of governance designed to generate fear, headlines and conflict,” Walz said. “It’s governing by reality TV, and today, that recklessness cost someone their life.”

He added: “We won’t let them tear us apart. We’ll not turn against each other. To Minnesotans, they say this, I feel your anger. I’m angry. They want a show. We can’t give it to them.”

Like a number of other Democrats in Minnesota, Walz called for federal law enforcement authorities to leave the state.

“I have a very simple message, we do not need any further help from the federal government,” he said. “To Donald Trump and Kristi Noem: you have done enough.”

Meanwhile, state Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson urged “safe and lawful” protests and warned that actions like blocking freeways or damaging property could result in fines and arrest.

“We fully expect that the community will want to peacefully demonstrate their anger or frustration. Minnesota residents and visitors have the right to peacefully demonstrate,” Jacobson said. “Our focus is keeping demonstrators, community members, drivers and law enforcement safe, especially during moments of heightened tension or uncertainty.”

Reactions

A number of statements via social media and email from politicians ranged outrage over ICE’s actions and presence in the Twin Cities to support for federal law enforcement.

President Donald Trump, in a social media post, described the victim as a “professional agitator” and said video of the incident shows the ICE agent acting in self-defense.

“Based on the attached clip, it’s hard to believe he’s still alive” Trump said. He went on to blame “The Radical Left” for threatening law enforcement.

State Attorney General Keith Ellison, in a statement, said he was “very angry.”

“Like so many Minnesotans, I’m heartbroken. I’m also angry. Very angry. For weeks, we’ve watched the Trump administration deliberately brutalize our communities, and now an ICE agent has fatally shot one of our neighbors,” Ellison said. “The president is deliberately weaponizing the federal government against the people of Minnesota to inflict pain and instill terror. We must stand up to this horrendous injustice, and in doing so, we must not stoop to Donald Trump’s level. We’re right to be heartbroken and angry, but we cannot give Donald Trump the excuse he wants to continue escalating this violence against Minnesotans.”

Ellison said residents should “protest peacefully, organize your communities, and stand up for one another. I will continue to do everything in my power to oppose this brutality, ensure justice is served, and keep Minnesotans safe. Right now, I think nothing would keep Minnesotans safer than seeing ICE leave our state, and take their chaos, pain, and violence with them.”

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, in a statement, said the incident was “the result of the administration sending federal agents onto our streets against the wishes of local law enforcement, including our respected (Minneapolis) Police Chief Brian O’Hara. We need full transparency and an investigation of what happened, and I am deeply concerned that statements made by (the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) do not appear to reflect video evidence and on-the-ground accounts. While our immigration enforcement should be focused on apprehending and prosecuting violent criminals to make our communities safer, these ICE actions are doing the opposite and making our state less safe.”

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat from St. Paul, called on ICE agents to leave the state.

“ICE must immediately cease and desist their actions in Minnesota to allow state and local law enforcement officials to restore order, prevent further violence, and conduct a full, independent, and transparent investigation into ICE’s actions and conduct which caused this horrific shooting,” McCollum said. “Minnesotans are justified in their anger. As Minnesotans, we demand accountability and justice. We have a fundamental right to express our first amendment freedoms through peaceful protest. We must not fall into Trump’s trap of division and violence. We can show the world the best of Minnesota values – our compassion, our respect for the dignity of each of our neighbors, and our belief in justice for all.”

In a social media post U.S. Tom Emmer, a Sixth District Republican, posted on X his support for federal law enforcement.

“I pray that every federal law enforcement officer on the ground in Minnesota right now remains safe as they carry out their vital mission. Tim Walz and Jacob Frey are cowards who are inciting violence to distract from their own failures. It’s dangerous. Stay safe, @ICEgov.”

St. Paul mayor, others

St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her said in a social media post that she was monitoring the situation in Minneapolis.

“My heart is broken for the victim, their family, and our community as a whole,” Her said. “I join Mayor Frey in demanding that ICE leave our cities immediately before they cause any further harm.”

Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL- St. Paul, in a statement, said she was “devastated and furious.”

“A weak president sent ICE agents to Minnesota to sow chaos without regard for human life, and today’s killing is the predictable outcome,” Murphy said. “This federal government is using violence to force us into fearful silence and compliance, and a woman is dead because of it. ICE should never have been in Minnesota, and they need to leave now.

“I denounce these actions, and I will fight with all I have for our freedom and safety. I urge us all, even as we feel our rage and our grief, to remain calm; more innocent people cannot be hurt. We demand accountability — and the truth — from the President, Secretary Noem, ICE officials, and those involved in the shooting.”

Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, in a statement, said “peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy and must be protected, but endangering law enforcement officers is never acceptable.”

Johnson added: “I offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of a loved one and urge everyone to step back, de-escalate, and let investigators fully examine the facts of what occurred.”

David Titus, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association’s interim executive director, said the association stands “firmly behind law enforcement officers, accountability under the law, and the safety of every Minnesota community.

“Irresponsible, reckless rhetoric from political leaders attacking law enforcement has real and dangerous consequences for officers on the street,” he said in a statement. “When officers are vilified, demonized, or used as political props, it fuels hostility, emboldens bad actors, and puts lives directly at risk.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration on Wednesday sought to assert its control over Venezuelan oil, seizing a pair of sanctioned tankers transporting petroleum and announcing plans to relax some sanctions so the U.S. can oversee the sale of Venezuela’s petroleum worldwide.

Trump’s administration intends to control the distribution of Venezuela’s oil products globally following its ouster of President Nicolás Maduro in a surprise nighttime raid. Besides the United States enforcing an existing oil embargo, the Energy Department says the “only oil transported in and out of Venezuela” will be through approved channels consistent with U.S. law and national security interests.

That level of control over the world’s largest proven reserves of crude oil could give the Trump administration a broader hold on oil supplies globally in ways that could enable it to influence prices. Both moves reflect the Republican administration’s determination to make good on its effort to control the next steps in Venezuela through its vast oil resources after Trump pledged the U.S. will “run” the country.

Vice President JD Vance said in an interview the U.S. can “control” Venezuela’s “purse strings” by dictating where its oil can be sold.

“We control the energy resources, and we tell the regime, you’re allowed to sell the oil so long as you serve America’s national interest,” Vance said in an interview to air on Fox News Channel’s “Jesse Watters Primetime.”

The vice president added, “And that’s how we exert incredible pressure on that country without wasting a single American life.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the oil taken from the sanctioned vessels seized in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean Sea would be sold as part of the deal announced by Trump on Tuesday under which Venezuela would provide up to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S.

Venezuela’s interim authorities “want that oil that was seized to be part of this deal,” Rubio told reporters after briefing lawmakers Wednesday about the Maduro operation. “They understand that the only way they can move oil and generate revenue and not have economic collapse is if they cooperate and work with the United States.”

Trump spurs speculation about his plans for Greenland, Cuba and Colombia after capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro

Seizing 2 more vessels

U.S. European Command said on social media that the merchant vessel Bella 1 was seized in the North Atlantic for “violations of U.S. sanctions.” The U.S. had been pursuing the tanker since last month after it tried to evade a blockade on sanctioned oil vessels around Venezuela.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed U.S. forces also took control of the M Sophia in the Caribbean Sea. Noem said on social media that both ships were “either last docked in Venezuela or en route to it.”

The two ships join at least two others that were taken by U.S. forces last month — the Skipper and the Centuries.

The Bella 1 had been cruising across the Atlantic nearing the Caribbean on Dec. 15 when it abruptly turned and headed north, toward Europe. The change in direction came days after the first U.S. tanker seizure of a ship on Dec. 10 after it had left Venezuela carrying oil.

When the U.S. Coast Guard tried to board the Bella 1, it fled. U.S. European Command said a Coast Guard vessel had tracked the ship “pursuant to a warrant issued by a U.S. federal court.”

As the U.S. pursued it, the Bella 1 was renamed Marinera and flagged to Russia, shipping databases show. A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations, said the ship’s crew had painted a Russian flag on the side of the hull.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said it had information about Russian nationals among the Marinera’s crew and, in a statement carried by Russia’s state news agencies Tass and RIA Novosti, demanded that “the American side ensure humane and dignified treatment of them, strictly respect their rights and interests, and not hinder their speedy return to their homeland.”’

Separately, a senior Russian lawmaker, Andrei Klishas, decried the U.S. action as “blatant piracy.”

The Justice Department is investigating crew members of the Bella 1 vessel for failing to obey Coast Guard orders and “criminal charges will be pursued against all culpable actors,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

“The Department of Justice is monitoring several other vessels for similar enforcement action — anyone on any vessel who fails to obey instructions of the Coast Guard or other federal officials will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Bondi said on X.

The ship had been sanctioned by the U.S. in 2024 on allegations of smuggling cargo for a company linked to Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran.

Easing some sanctions to sell Venezuela’s oil

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is “selectively” removing sanctions to enable the shipping and sale of Venezuelan oil to markets worldwide, according to an outline of the policies published Wednesday by the Energy Department.

The sales are slated to begin immediately with 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil. The U.S. government said the sales “will continue indefinitely,” with the proceeds settling in U.S.-controlled accounts at “globally recognized banks.” The money would be disbursed to the U.S. and Venezuelan populations at the “discretion” of Trump’s government.

Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA said it is in negotiations with the U.S. government for the sale of crude oil.

“This process is developed under schemes similar to those in force with international companies, such as Chevron, and is based on a strictly commercial transaction, with criteria of legality, transparency and benefit for both parties,” the company said in the statement.

The U.S. plans to authorize the importation of oil field equipment, parts and services to increase Venezuela’s oil production, which has been roughly 1 million barrels a day.

The Trump administration has indicated it also will invest in the electricity grid to increase production and the quality of life for people in Venezuela, whose economy has been unraveling amid changes to foreign aid and cuts to state subsidies, making necessities, including food, unaffordable to millions.

Meanwhile, Trump abruptly changed his tone about Colombian President Gustavo Petro. Trump said Wednesday that they had exchanged a friendly phone call and he had invited the leader of the South American country to the White House. Trump had said earlier this week that “Colombia is very sick too” and accused Petro of ”making cocaine and selling it to the United States.”

Ships said to be part of a shadow fleet

Noem said both seized ships were part of a shadow fleet of rusting oil tankers that smuggle oil for countries facing sanctions, such as Venezuela, Russia and Iran.

After the seizure of the now-named Marinera, which open-source maritime tracking sites showed was between Scotland and Iceland earlier Wednesday, the U.K. defense ministry said Britain’s military provided support, including surveillance aircraft.

“This ship, with a nefarious history, is part of a Russian-Iranian axis of sanctions evasion which is fueling terrorism, conflict, and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine,” U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said.

The capture of the M Sophia, on the U.S. sanctions list for moving illicit cargos of oil from Russia, in the Caribbean was much less prolonged.

The ship had been “running dark,” not having transmitted location data since July. Tankers involved in smuggling often turn off their transponders or broadcast inaccurate data to hide their locations.

Samir Madani, co-founder of TankerTrackers.com, said his organization used satellite imagery and surface-level photos to document that at least 16 tankers had left the Venezuelan coast since Saturday, after the U.S. captured Maduro.

The M Sophia was among them, Madani said, citing a recent photo showing it in the waters near Jose Terminal, Venezuela’s main oil export hub.

Windward, a maritime intelligence firm that tracks such vessels, said in a briefing to reporters the M Sophia loaded at the terminal on Dec. 26 and was carrying about 1.8 million barrels of crude oil — a cargo that would be worth about $108 million at current price of about $60 a barrel.

Lawless reported from London.

The post 5 years since the January 6 insurrection appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

The post Michigan farmers face uncertainties despite bailout, union says appeared first on WDET 101.9 FM.

By ISABEL DEBRE and MEGAN JANETSKY, Associated Press

MEXICO CITY (AP) — In his celebratory news conference on the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman leader Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump set out an extraordinarily forthright view of the use of U.S. power in Latin America that exposed political divisions from Mexico to Argentina as Trump-friendly leaders rise across the region.

“American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again,” Trump proclaimed just hours before Maduro was perp-walked through the offices of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in New York.

The scene marked a stunning culmination of months of escalation in Washington’s confrontation with Caracas that has reawakened memories of a past era of blatant U.S. interventionism in the region.

Since assuming office less than a year ago — and promptly renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America — Trump has launched boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean, ordered a naval blockade on Venezuelan oil exports and meddled in elections in Honduras and Argentina.

Through a combination of tariffs, sanctions and military force, he has pressured Latin American leaders to advance his administration’s goals of combating drug trafficking, halting immigration, securing strategic natural resources and countering the influence of Russia and China.

The new, aggressive foreign policy — which Trump now calls the “Donroe Doctrine,” in reference to 19th-century President James Monroe’s belief that the U.S. should dominate its sphere of influence — has carved the hemisphere into allies and foes.

“The Trump administration in multiple different ways has been trying to reshape Latin American politics,” said Gimena Sanchez, Andes director for the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank. “They’re showing their teeth in the whole region.”

Reactions to US raid put regional divisions on display

Saturday’s dramatic events — including Trump’s vow that Washington would “run” Venezuela and seize control of its oil sector — galvanized opposite sides of the polarized continent.

Argentine President Javier Milei, Trump’s ideological soulmate, characterized one side as supporting “democracy, the defense of life, freedom and property.”

“On the other side,” he added, “are those accomplices of a narco-terrorist and bloody dictatorship that has been a cancer for our region.”

Other right-wing leaders in South America similarly seized on Maduro’s ouster to declare their ideological affinity with Trump.

In Ecuador, conservative President Daniel Noboa issued a stern warning for all followers of Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s mentor and the founder of the Bolivarian revolution: “Your structure will completely collapse across the entire continent.”

In Chile, where a presidential election last month marked by fears over Venezuelan immigration brought down the leftist government, far-right President-elect José Antonio Kast hailed the U.S. raid as “great news for the region.”

But left-wing presidents in Latin America — including Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Chile’s Gabriel Boric and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro — expressed grave concerns over what they saw as U.S. bullying.

Lula said the raid set “an extremely dangerous precedent.” Sheinbaum warned it “jeopardizes regional stability.” Boric said it “violated an essential pillar of international law.” Petro called it “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.”

Trump has previously punished or threatened all four leaders for failing to fall in line with his demands, while boosting and bailing out allies who show loyalty.

The attack recalls a painful history of US intervention

For Lula — among the last surviving icons of the so-called “pink tide,” the leftist leaders who dominated Latin American politics from the turn of the 21st century — Trump’s military action in Venezuela “recalls the worst moments of interference in the politics of Latin America.”

Those moments range from American troops occupying Central American and Caribbean nations to promote the interests of U.S. companies like Chiquita in the early 1900s to Washington supporting repressive military dictatorships in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay to fend off Soviet influence in the 1970s.

The historical echoes in Maduro’s downfall fueled not only harsh condemnations and street protests among Trump’s left-wing opponents but also uneasy responses from some of his close allies.

Usually effusive in his support for Trump, President Nayib Bukele was oddly quiet in El Salvador, a nation still scarred by a brutal civil war between a repressive U.S.-allied government and leftist guerillas. He posted a meme mocking Maduro after his capture Saturday, but expressed none of the jubilation seen from regional counterparts.

In Bolivia, where old anti-American dogmas die hard due to memories of the bloody U.S.-backed war on drugs, new conservative President Rodrigo Paz praised Maduro’s removal insomuch as it fulfilled “the true popular will” of Venezuelans who tried to vote the autocrat out of office in a 2024 election widely seen as fraudulent.

“Bolivia reaffirms that the way out for Venezuela is to respect the vote,” Paz said.

His message didn’t age well. Hours later, Trump announced he would work with Maduro’s loyalist vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, rather than the opposition that prevailed in the 2024 election.

“The Trump administration, it appears at this point, is making decisions about the democratic future of Venezuela without referring back to the democratic result,” said Kevin Whitaker, former deputy chief of mission for the State Department in Caracas.

When asked Sunday about when Venezuela will hold democratic elections, Trump responded: “I think we’re looking more at getting it fixed.”

As the right rises, Trump puts enemies on notice

The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela extends its broader crusade to assemble a column of allied — or at least acquiescent — governments in Latin America, sailing with the political winds blowing in much of the region.

Recent presidential elections from Chile to Honduras have elevated tough, Trump-like leaders who oppose immigration, prioritize security and promise a return to better, bygone eras free of globalization and “wokeness.”

“The president is going to be looking for allied and partner nations in the hemisphere who share his kind of broader ideological affinity,” said Alexander Gray, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington research institute.

Those who don’t share that ideology were put on notice this weekend. Trump said Cuba’s Communist government “looks like it’s ready to fall.” He slammed Sheinbaum’s failure to root out Mexican cartels, saying that “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.” He repeated allegations that Petro “likes making cocaine” and warned that “he’s not going to be doing it very long.”

“We’re in the business of having countries around us that are viable and successful, where the oil is allowed to really come out,” he told reporters Sunday on Air Force One. “It’s our hemisphere.”

DeBre reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Associated Press writers Maria Verza in Mexico City and Darlene Superville aboard Air Force One contributed to this report.

By JOSH FUNK, Associated Press Business Writer

President Donald Trump’s plan to take control of Venezuela’s oil industry and ask American companies to revitalize it after capturing President Nicolás Maduro in a raid isn’t likely to have a significant immediate impact on oil prices.

Venezuela’s oil industry is in disrepair after years of neglect and international sanctions, so it could take years and major investments before production can increase dramatically. But some analysts are optimistic that Venezuela could double or triple its current output of about 1.1 million barrels of oil a day to return to historic levels fairly quickly.

“While many are reporting Venezuela’s oil infrastructure was unharmed by U.S. military actions, it has been decaying for many many years and will take time to rebuild,” said Patrick De Haan, who is the lead petroleum analyst at gasoline price tracker GasBuddy.

American oil companies will want a stable regime in the country before they are willing to invest heavily, and the political picture remained uncertain Saturday with Trump saying that the United States is in charge — while the current Venezuelan vice president argued, before Venezuela’s high court ordered her to assume the role of interim president, that Maduro should be restored to power.

“But if it seems like the U.S. is successful in running the country for the next 24 hours, I would say there would be a lot of optimism that U.S. energy companies could come in and revitalize the Venezuelan oil industry fairly quickly,” said Phil Flynn, a senior market analyst at the Price Futures Group.

And if Venezuela can grow into an oil production powerhouse, Flynn said “that could cement lower prices for the longer term” and put more pressure on Russia.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said oil companies are “going to go in and rebuild this system.”

A major shift in oil prices wasn’t expected because Venezuela is a member of OPEC, so its production is already accounted for there. And there is currently a surplus of oil on the global market.

The price of U.S. crude oil lost 23 cents early Monday to $57.09 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, gave up 18 cents to $60.57 per barrel.

Proven reserves

Venezuela is known to have the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of approximately 303 billion barrels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That accounts for roughly 17% of all global oil reserves.

So international oil companies have reason to be interested in Venezuela. Exxon Mobil didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday. ConocoPhillips spokesperson Dennis Nuss said by email that the company “is monitoring developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability. It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments.”

Chevron is the only one with significant operations in Venezuela, where it produces about 250,000 barrels a day. Chevron, which first invested in Venezuela in the 1920s, does business in the country through joint ventures with the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., commonly known as PDVSA.

“Chevron remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets. We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” Chevron spokesman Bill Turenne said.

But even with those massive reserves, Venezuela has been producing less than 1% of the world’s crude oil supply. Corruption, mismanagement and U.S. economic sanctions saw production steadily decline from the 3.5 million barrels per day pumped in 1999 to today’s levels.

The problem isn’t finding the oil. It’s a question of the political environment and whether companies can count on the government to live up to their contracts. Back in 2007, then President Hugo Chávez nationalized much of the oil production and forced major players like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips out.

“The issue is not just that the infrastructure is in bad shape, but it’s mostly about how do you get foreign companies to start pouring money in before they have a clear perspective on the political stability, the contract situation and the like,” said Francisco Monaldi, who is the director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University.

But the infrastructure does need significant investment.

“The estimate is that in order for Venezuela to increase from one million barrels per day — that is what it produces today — to four million barrels, it will take about a decade and about a hundred billion dollars of investment,” Monaldi said.

Strong demand

Venezuela produces the kind of heavy crude oil that’s needed for diesel fuel, asphalt and other fuels for heavy equipment. Diesel is in short supply around the world because of the sanctions on oil from Venezuela and Russia and because America’s lighter crude oil can’t easily replace it.

Years ago, American refineries on the Gulf Coast were optimized to handle that kind of heavy crude at a time when U.S. oil production was falling and Venezuelan and Mexican crude was plentiful. So refineries would love to have more access to Venezuela’s crude because it would help them operate more efficiently, and it tends to be a little cheaper.

Boosting Venezuelan production could also make it easier to put pressure on Russia because Europe and the rest of the world could get more of the diesel and heavy oil they need from Venezuela and stop buying from Russia.

“There’s been a big benefit for Russia to see Venezuela’s oil industry collapse. And the reason is because they were a competitor on the global stage for that oil market,” Flynn said.

Complicated legal picture

But Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the George W. Bush administration, 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?” Waxman wrote in an email. “An occupying military power can’t enrich itself by taking another state’s resources, but the Trump administration will probably claim that the Venezuelan government never rightfully held them.”

But Waxman, who served in the State and Defense departments and on the National Security Council under Bush, noted that “we’ve seen the administration talk very dismissively about international law when it comes to Venezuela.”

Associated Press writers Matt O’Brien, Ben Finley, Darlene Superville and Rio Yamat contributed to this report.

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE and AAMER MADHANI, Associated Press

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Donald Trump on Sunday told reporters that U.S. officials have determined that Ukraine did not target a residence belonging to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a drone attack last week, disputing Kremlin claims that Trump had initially greeted with deep concern.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week said Ukraine launched a wave of drones at Putin’s state residence in the northwestern Novgorod region that the Russian defense systems were able to defeat. Lavrov also criticized Kyiv for launching the attack at a moment of intensive negotiations to end the war.

The allegation came just a day after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had traveled to Florida for talks with Trump on the U.S. administration’s still-evolving 20-point plan aimed at ending the war. Zelenskyy quickly denied the Kremlin allegation.

Trump said that “something happened nearby” Putin’s residence but that Americans officials didn’t find the Russian president’s residence was targeted.

“I don’t believe that strike happened,” Trump told reporters as he traveled back to Washington on Sunday after spending two weeks at his home in Florida. “We don’t believe that happened, now that we’ve been able to check.”

Trump addressed the U.S. determination after European officials argued that the Russian claim was nothing more than an effort by Moscow to undermine the peace effort.

But Trump, at least initially, had appeared to take the Russian allegations at face value. He told reporters last Monday that Putin had also raised the matter during a phone he had with the Russian leader earlier that day. And Trump said he was “very angry” about the accusation.

By Wednesday, Trump appeared to be downplaying the Russian claim. He posted a link to a New York Post editorial on his social media platform that raised doubt about the Russian allegation. The editorial lambasted Putin for choosing “lies, hatred, and death” at a moment that Trump has claimed is “closer than ever before” to moving the two sides to a deal to end the war.

The U.S. president has struggled to fulfill a pledge to quickly end the war in Ukraine and has shown irritation with both Zelenskyy and Putin as he tried to mediate an end to a conflict he boasted on the campaign trail that he could end in one day.

Both Trump and Zelenskyy said last week they made progress in their talks at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

But Putin has shown little interest in ending the war until all of Russia’s objectives are met, including winning control of all Ukrainian territory in the key industrial Donbas region and imposing severe restrictions on the size of Ukraine’s post-war military and the type of weaponry it can possess.

Madhani reported from Washington.

By LISA MASCARO, Associated Press Congressional Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) — Approaching the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the official plaque honoring the police who defended democracy that day is nowhere to be found.

It’s not on display at the Capitol, as is required by law. Its whereabouts aren’t publicly known, though it’s believed to be in storage.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has yet to formally unveil the plaque. And the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking to dismiss a police officers’ lawsuit asking that it be displayed as intended. The Architect of the Capitol, which was responsible for obtaining and displaying the plaque, said in light of the federal litigation, it cannot comment.

Determined to preserve the nation’s history, some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have taken it upon themselves to memorialize the moment. For months, they’ve mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors, resulting in a Capitol complex awash with makeshift remembrances.

“On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on Jan. 6, 2021,” reads the faux bronze stand-in for the real thing. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

Jan. 6 void in the Capitol

In Washington, a capital city lined with monuments to the nation’s history, the plaque was intended to become a simple but permanent marker, situated near the Capitol’s west front, where some of the most violent fighting took place as rioters breached the building.

But in its absence, the missing plaque makes way for something else entirely — a culture of forgetting.

Visitors can pass through the Capitol without any formal reminder of what happened that day, when a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the building trying to overturn the Republican’s 2020 reelection defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. With memory left unchecked, it allows new narratives to swirl and revised histories to take hold.

Five years ago, the jarring scene watched the world over was declared an “insurrection” by the then-GOP leader of the Senate, while the House GOP leader at the time called it his “saddest day” in Congress. But those condemnations have faded.

Trump calls it a “day of love.” And Johnson, who was among those lawmakers challenging the 2020 election results, is now the House speaker.

“The question of January 6 remains – democracy was on the guillotine — how important is that event in the overall sweep of 21st century U.S. history,” said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University and noted scholar.

“Will January 6 be seen as the seminal moment when democracy was in peril?” he asked. Or will it be remembered as “kind of a weird one-off?”

“There’s not as much consensus on that as one would have thought on the fifth anniversary,” he said.

Memories shift, but violent legacy lingers

At least five people died in the riot and its aftermath, including Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by police while trying to climb through a window toward the House chamber. More than 140 law enforcement officers were wounded, some gravely, and several died later, some by suicide.

All told, some 1,500 people were charged in the Capitol attack, among the largest federal prosecutions in the nation’s history. When Trump returned to power in January 2025, he pardoned all of them within hours of taking office.

Unlike the twin light beams that commemorated the Sept. 11, 2001, attack or the stand-alone chairs at the Oklahoma City bombing site memorial, the failure to recognize Jan. 6 has left a gap not only in memory but in helping to stitch the country back together.

“That’s why you put up a plaque,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa. “You respect the memory and the service of the people involved.”

Police sue over Jan. 6 plaque, DOJ seeks to dismiss

The speaker’s office over the years has suggested it was working on installing the plaque, but it declined to respond to a request for further comment.

Lawmakers approved the plaque in March 2022 as part of a broader government funding package. The resolution said the U.S. “owes its deepest gratitude to those officers,” and it set out instructions for an honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation at the Capitol.

This summer, two officers who fought the mob that day sued over the delay.

“By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” said the claim by officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”

The Justice Department is seeking to have the case dismissed. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and others argued Congress “already has publicly recognized the service of law enforcement personnel” by approving the plaque and displaying it wouldn’t alleviate the problems they claim to face from their work.

“It is implausible,” the Justice Department attorneys wrote, to suggest installation of the plaque “would stop the alleged death threats they claim to have been receiving.”

The department also said the plaque is required to include the names of “all law enforcement officers” involved in the response that day — some 3,600 people.

Makeshift memorials emerge

Lawmakers who’ve installed replicas of the plaque outside their offices said it’s important for the public to know what happened.

“There are new generations of people who are just growing up now who don’t understand how close we came to losing our democracy on Jan 6, 2021,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, which was opposed by GOP leadership but nevertheless issued a nearly 1,000-page report investigating the run-up to the attack and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Raskin envisions the Capitol one day holding tours around what happened. “People need to study that as an essential part of American history,” he said.

“Think about the dates in American history that we know only by the dates: There’s the 4th of July. There’s December 7th. There’s 9/11. And there’s January 6th,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., who also served on the committee and has a plaque outside her office.

“They really saved my life, and they saved the democracy and they deserve to be thanked for it,” she said.

But as time passes, there are no longer bipartisan memorial services for Jan. 6. On Tuesday, the Democrats will reconvene members from the Jan. 6 committee for a hearing to “examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York announced. It’s unlikely Republicans will participate.

The Republicans under Johnson have tapped Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia to stand up their own special committee to uncover what the speaker calls the “full truth” of what happened. They’re planning a hearing this month.

“We should stop this silliness of trying to whitewash history — it’s not going to happen,” said Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., who helped lead the effort to display the replica plaques.

“I was here that day so I’ll never forget,” he said. “I think that Americans will not forget what happened.”

The number of makeshift plaques that fill the halls is a testimony to that remembrance, he said.

Instead of one plaque, he said, they’ve “now got 100.”

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.”