Democrats Claim Maduro Capture Is A 'Distraction'

 Democrats immediately denounced President Trump's operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, calling it an illegal war despite broad precedent supporting the commander-in-chief's authority to conduct such missions without congressional approval.

Even former Vice President Kamala Harris has chimed in.

"Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable," Harris claimed in a post on X. “That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise. We’ve seen this movie before. Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.”

Other Democrats claimed that the operation to capture Maduro was a “distraction.”

During an appearance on MSNOW on Saturday, Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.) suggested the timing of Maduro's capture served primarily as a distraction from issues Democrats plan to spotlight when Congress reconvenes, namely the upcoming anniversary of the Capitol riot on January 6, and the Epstein files.

"I think it was mentioned by one of your earlier speakers that Donald Trump is transactional, what he wants is access to those oil reserves," Strickland said.

"At the same time, this is also a big distraction. Look at the timing of this. We go back in session on Tuesday. We are going to talk about the Affordable Care Act premiums. We're going to talk about January 6, the Epstein files, the economy, all those things that are so important to the American people, and, what a coincidence, this happens."

She also drew a comparison between Maduro and Trump regarding election integrity.

"It also is not a surprise of the timing. We're going back to Congress next week... and we'll be talking about January 6, which is kind of ironic here, because...Maduro, he actually did steal two elections. And Donald Trump tried to do that on January 6, but he failed," Strickland said.

Strickland wasn’t the only one pushing the “distraction” angle.

 "It's not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn't have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month. It's about oil and regime change,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claimed.

And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn't. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs," she wrote.

However, these accusations ignored a glaring contradiction.

The Trump administration carried out an operation targeting a leader the Biden-Harris administration actively sought to apprehend. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced on January 10, 2025, mere days before Joe Biden and Kamala Harris left office, that the State Department would increase the reward to $25 million for Maduro.

“In solidarity with the Venezuelan people, the U.S. Government and our partners around the world are taking action today,” Blinken announced in a statement on January 10, 2025.

“The Department of State is increasing the reward offers to up to $25 million each for information leading to the arrests and/or convictions of Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello. The Department of State is also adding a new reward offer of up to $15 million for Maduro’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López. These three reward offers stem from criminal narcotrafficking indictments announced in March 2020.”

Biden's outgoing administration framed the increased reward as part of coordinated international pressure on the illegitimate Maduro regime.

It appears that the only distraction going on here is from the Democrats, who don’t want the public to realize that Trump succeeded where Biden-Harris failed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/democrats-claim-maduro-capture-distraction

Operation Absolute Resolve: Why Trump Went Off Script And Why It Will Not Matter

by Jonathan Turley,

It can fairly be said that the most precarious jobs in the world are those of a golf ball collector at a driving range, a mascot at a Chuck E. Cheese, and a Trump Administration lawyer.

That was evident at the press conference yesterday as President Donald Trump blew apart the carefully constructed narrative presented earlier for the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. 

Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Dan Caine stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them into legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.

However, while noting the purpose of the capture, President Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Hugo Chávez.

This city is full of self-proclaimed Trump whisperers who rarely score above random selection in their predictions. However, there are certain pronounced elements in Trump’s approach to such matters. First, he is the most transparent president in my lifetime with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.

In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.

Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.

The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.

The courts have previously upheld the authority of presidents to seize individuals abroad, including the purported heads of state. This case is actually stronger in many respects than the one involving Noriega. Maduro will now make the same failed arguments that Noriega raised. He should lose those challenges under existing precedent. If courts apply the same standards to Trump (which is often an uncertain proposition), Trump will win on the right to seize Maduro and bring him to justice.

But then, how about the other rationales rattled off at Mar-A-Lago? In my view, it will not matter. Here is why.

The immediate purpose and result of the operation was to capture Maduro and to bring him to face his indictment in New York. That is Noriega 2.0.

The Administration put him into custody at the time of extraction with law enforcement personnel and handed him over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Trump Administration can then argue that it had to deal with the aftermath of that operation and would not simply leave the country without a leader or stable government.

Trump emphasized that “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

I still do not like the import of those statements. Venezuelans must be in charge of their own country and our role, if any, must be to help them establish a democratic and stable government. Trump added that “We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.”

The devil is in the details. Venezuelans must decide who has their best interests in mind, not the United States.

However, returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose.

Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.

He will leave it to his lawyers to make that case. It is not the case that some of us preferred, but it is the case that he wants to be made. He is not someone who can be scripted. It is his script and he is still likely to prevail in holding Maduro and his wife for trial.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/operation-absolute-resolve-why-trump-went-script-and-why-it-will-not-matter

Chinese Social Media Explodes: US Invasion Of Venezuela A 'Template' For Move On Taiwan

 A fascinating new report by Bloomberg on Sunday has observed a huge uptick in Chinese social media users weighing in on the decades-long Taiwan independence crisis, in relation to President Trump's weekend overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

"Trump's operation against the Venezuelan strongman shot to the top of China’s Weibo late Saturday, with the topic gaining some 440 million views on the X-like platform," Bloomberg reports. "Many commentators were quick to make comparisons between the fate of the South American nation and that of the self-ruled democracy Beijing has vowed to claim."

Like the long building military showdown between the United States and Venezuela, Taiwan has been a flashpoint in mainland China's shadow. It is 'small' in comparison with China's population and military might. But the situation is an inversion, with Washington having long armed Taiwan to the teeth.

This fact is obvious enough to spark an avalanche of commentary, with Bloomberg citing one Weibo post and thread (among many) which said "I suggest using the same method to reclaim Taiwan in the future" - in reference to Beijing's designs on 'reuniting' the self-ruled island with the mainland.

Another user said, "The US imperialists’ lightning raid on Venezuela to capture Maduro and his wife provides a perfect blueprint for our military to launch a surprise attack on Frog Island and seize [Taiwanese President] Lai Ching-te" - which utilized a popular derogatory term for Taiwan.

Nikkei/Google Earth

China has joined Russia in demanding the immediate release of Maduro, with the foreign ministry staying it was "deeply shocked" by the "blatant use of force against a sovereign state."

The same report features the perspective of former diplomat Ryan Hass:

"I don’t expect today’s events in Venezuela will dramatically shift Beijing’s calculus on Taiwan," Ryan Hass, a former US diplomat and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote on X. "Beijing hasn’t refrained from kinetic or other actions on Taiwan out of deference to international law and norms."

"Privately, I expect Beijing will emphasize to Washington that it expects to be given the same latitude for great power exemptions to international law that the US takes for itself," he added, citing China’s operations in the South China Sea, where it has territorial disputes with US allies and other regional neighbors.

Indeed under Trump it is a new day. Not only does he "speak the truth out loud" - no longer merely hiding behind platitudes like "spreading democracy" in the name of the "rules-based order", he unapologetically just invades countries he doesn't like (as the foray into Caracas makes clear).

The US has long condemned Moscow of doing just this (in Ukraine, or in Georgia over a decade ago). The Kremlin has reacted this weekend to the Venezuela intervention by saying "just watch the double standards in motion."

Beijing without doubt is signaling the same thing. It is asking essentially: if the US can do this in its own backyard (invade a small 'nuisance' country), then why can't China do the same?

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/chinese-social-media-explodes-us-invasion-venezuela-template-move-taiwan

Who Is Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro's Deputy?

 Venezuela’s former Vice President Delcy Rodríguez is now president of the country, U.S. President Donald Trump said, hours after a U.S. military operation captured former leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Jan. 3.

“She was just sworn in, but she was, as you know, picked by Maduro,” Trump said.

He said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “is working on that directly. Just had a conversation with her, and she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again. Very simple.”

The overnight surprise attack resulted in Maduro and Flores being shipped to New York to face charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Courtesy of Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times, here is what we know about Rodríguez.

Who Is Rodríguez?

Rodríguez was born and raised in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, on May 18, 1969.

​The 56-year-old leader graduated from Universidad Central de Venezuela, became a lawyer, and quickly rose through the political system in the past decade.

Rodríguez served as the Communication and Information Minister in 2013 before she pivoted to a Foreign Ministry position from 2014 to 2017 and eventually served as the head of the Constituent Assembly, which expanded Maduro’s powers.

Vice Presidency

Maduro selected Rodríguez as his vice president in June 2018, describing her as “a young woman, brave, seasoned, daughter of a martyr, revolutionary, and tested in a thousand battles.”

In August 2024, Maduro assigned Rodríguez to manage sanctions on oil between the United States and Venezuela.

Acting Leader

Trump announced from Mar-a-Lago on Jan. 3 that the United States will “run” Venezuela until a peaceful transition can be made, while saying that Rodríguez has agreed to work with the United States after being “sworn in” as Venezuela’s new president.

Trump said Rodríguez had spoken with Rubio but didn’t provide details on how the United States would work with Rodríguez to run the country.

“She really doesn’t have a choice,” Trump said.

“We’re going to have this done right. We’re not going to just do this with Maduro, then leave like everybody else, leave and say, ‘Let it go to hell.’ If we just left, it has zero chance of ever coming back.

“We‘ll run it properly. We’ll run it professionally. We'll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions and billions of dollars and take out money, use that money in Venezuela. And the biggest beneficiary going to be the people of Venezuela.”

In an address broadcast on state television shortly after Trump’s briefing, Rodríguez - who was identified as vice president by a ticker at the bottom of the screen - did not address Trump’s claims that she was now acting president. Instead, she demanded that the United States free Maduro, who she called the country’s rightful leader.

“Here, we have a government with clarity, and I repeat and repeat again … we are willing to have respectful relations,” Rodríguez said.

“It is the only thing we will accept for a type of relationship after having [been] attacked.”

Maduro’s Exit Plan

Before Maduro was captured, he floated the idea of staying in office for three more years before having Rodríguez take over and finish his term through January 2031.

The proposal was rejected by the White House, which openly questioned the legitimacy of Venezuela’s 2024 election and accused Maduro of overseeing a narco-terrorist state.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/who-delcy-rodriguez-maduros-deputy

Mamdani’s comrades in DSA demand Trump release Maduro: ‘Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution!’

 Socialists of a feather flock together.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s comrades in the Democratic Socialists of America want deposed Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro returned to power.

The Democratic Socialists of America put out a lengthy statement demanding “the return of President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores to Venezuela.”

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference on Jan. 3, 2026.Michael Nagle for NY Post

Nicolas Maduro flashes a thumbs up in NYC after his arrest.HZ / BACKGRID

Meanwhile, the DSA is starting a “join our “Hands Off Venezuela” to get the “imperialist” United States out of the socialist, oil-rich country.

“Solidarity with the people of Venezuela! Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution!”, separate DSA International Committee policy statement says.

In its statement on the removal of Maduro, the DSA claims the Trump administration has started “an illegal war” against Venezuela.

“This is a nakedly imperialist war to install a US puppet government that will give Venezuela’s oil resources over to US corporations and to force US hegemony over Latin America — the new `Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This war is illegal both under international law and the laws governing the declaration of war within the United States,” the left-wing group’s statement says.

“Trump’s war has nothing to do with drug trafficking. There is no substantiated evidence that high-level members of the Venezuelan government are `narco-terrorists.’ Yet, the Trump administration is using this claim as the pretext for this illegal war.”

DSA likened the US military’s action to the “failed” war against Iraq, claiming it will only “impoverish the people of Latin America.”

DSA demands:

• A return of Maduro to Venezuela and restoration of diplomatic relations with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — the Maduro-led regime
• An immediate end to “military violence” against Venezuela and a total withdrawal of all US forces and operations from the Caribbean
• Ending sanctions against Venezuela and suspending the failed “war on drugs”
• A US foreign policy centered on peace, multilateralism, and respect for national sovereignty and self-determination

Mamdani, a DSA member, said he personally called President Trump on Saturday to express his opposition to removing Maduro, claiming it’s a violation of international law.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/04/us-news/mayor-mamdanis-comrades-in-dsa-demand-trump-release-nicolas-maduro/

UK junk food advert ban set to come into force

Junk food adverts will be banned on television and online from Monday as part of a drive to tackle childhood obesity.


The UK-wide ban will stop food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) being advertised on TV before 21:00 and at any time online.

It applies to products considered to be the biggest drivers of childhood obesity, including soft drinks, chocolates and sweets, pizzas and ice creams.

The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) said it is committed to helping people eat healthily and has been voluntarily abiding by the new restrictions since October.

As well as more obviously unhealthy foods, the ban will also cover some breakfast cereals and porridges, sweetened bread products, and main meals and sandwiches.


Decisions over which products fall under the ban will be based on a scoring tool, balancing their nutrient levels against whether they are high in saturated fat, salt, or sugar.

Plain oats and most porridge, muesli and granola will not be banned under the crackdown, but some versions with added sugar, chocolate or syrup could be affected.

Firms can still promote healthier versions of banned products, which the government hopes will lead to food makers developing healthier recipes.


The ban only covers adverts in which unhealthy products can be seen by viewers, meaning fast-food firms will still be able to advertise using their brand name.

Previously, HFSS food and drink adverts were banned on any platform where more than a quarter of the audience was under 16.

Firms that do not comply with the new rules risk action by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA


NHS data shows almost one in 10 (9.2%) reception-aged children are now living with obesity, while one in five children have tooth decay by the age of five.

It is estimated obesity costs the NHS more than £11bn every year.

Evidence shows children's exposure to ads for unhealthy food can influence what they eat from a young age, in turn putting them at greater risk of becoming overweight or obese.

The government estimates the ad ban will prevent around 20,000 cases of childhood obesity.

Katherine Brown, professor of behaviour change in health at the University of Hertfordshire, said the ban was "long overdue and a move in the right direction".

She said: "Children are highly susceptible to aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods and exposure to them puts them at greater risk of developing obesity and associated chronic diseases."

Ms Brown called for the government to make nutritious options "more affordable, accessible and appealing".

The FDF said manufacturers are "committed to working in partnership with the government and others to help people make healthier choices".

It added: "Investing in developing healthier products has been a key priority for food and drink manufacturers for many years and as a result, our members' products now have a third of the salt and sugar and a quarter of the calories than they did ten years ago."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5y2vzlyldo

US oil giants mum after Trump says they’ll spend billions in Venezuela

 American energy firms have yet to say whether they plan to return to Venezuela to resurrect an oil industry hollowed out by years of neglect.

Chevron, the only U.S. energy titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following "relevant laws and regulations."

"Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets," a Chevron spokesperson added.

ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did ConocoPhillips.

An exterior view of a Venezuelan state-run oil refinery. (Jesus Vargas / Getty Images)

President Donald Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday that the U.S. would sell large amounts of Venezuelan oil to other countries after ramping up production. 

Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves, but years of underinvestment and crumbling infrastructure have left much of that wealth locked away. Trump said U.S. energy firms could return to the country to unlock that potential.

"We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country," he said.

Made with Flourish • Create a chart

When asked by Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson about the future of Venezuela’s oil sector and its buyers — which include China, Russia and Iran — Trump said the United States would sell large amounts of oil to many countries.

"We’re in the oil business," Trump said. 

He added that the United States "built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill" and said the country’s socialist government later took control of it.

President Donald Trump addresses the nation following the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. (Jim Watson/AFP / Getty Images)

"Venezuela unilaterally seized and sold American oil, American assets and American platforms, costing us billions and billions of dollars," Trump said. "They took all of our property."

Venezuela pushed out Western oil companies under a nationalization campaign launched by former President Hugo Chávez, ending what had once been a major period of U.S. energy investment.

Meanwhile, Trump reiterated that the U.S. embargo on all Venezuelan oil remains in full effect.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-oil-giants-mum-after-trump-says-theyll-spend-billions-venezuela