It’s not clear how long Venezuela will remain stable. There is a careful political balance to maintain stability. It’s also not clear how long the powers in Venezuela will put up with the US domineering over them. The US can destroy shit, but the Venezuelans can release chaos within Venezuela. Gangs in Venezuela are very powerful. The Venezuelan military doesn’t fully control the country.
Oil companies don’t want to invest in a country that requires huge investment and may not be stable, so their investment will likely need to be subsidized by the taxpayer.
The US is in its weakest position compared to China. The US’s global trade war makes it less able to threaten China with a coalition of countries working together to counter it economically, and the US’s trade war with China revealed America’s severe weaknesses, which is why the US keeps backing down when the bilateral trade war reaches extremes. China was starting to understand and respond to a more coalitional strategy when that got blown up with a change of president.
The uncertainty of Trump’s tariffs have hurt small businesses and people who buy from them. If people can’t be sure how much something will cost, sometimes they just hold off on that economic activity.
“It’s not hard to find examples of this rotten agency culture in practice. In late October 2025, ICE officers broke out the window of a U.S. citizen’s car and detained her for seven hours after she followed and photographed their unmarked vehicles. DHS accused her of reckless driving, attempting to block in officers with her car, and resisting arrest—all claims that she and her lawyer deny. Prosecutors did not charge the woman with a crime.
Recording government agents is one of the few tools citizens have to hold state power accountable. Any attempt to redefine observation as “violence” is not only unconstitutional—it’s authoritarian gaslighting. When a government fears cameras more than crimes, it isn’t protecting the rule of law. It’s protecting itself.”
“The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of rising climate pollution. It has universal participation. The U.S. was the first industrialized nation to join the treaty following its ratification under former President George H.W. Bush — and it will be the only nation ever to leave it.
The move marks an intensifying effort by Trump to topple climate efforts compared to his first term, when he decided against quitting the treaty.
…
Since taking office for a second time a year ago, the Trump administration has tried to undermine U.S. and international climate efforts by shuttering offices throughout the federal government and threatening to unleash tariffs on countries that support carbon taxes on shipping emissions.
He has overseen a wide-ranging campaign to erase regulations governing climate pollution at power plants and in cars, and his administration recruited high-profile climate contrarians to write a report that promoted misinformation about the tenets of climate science.
…
The U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. framework 34 years ago, making it a rare environmental pact that was supported unanimously. That could complicate any future president’s efforts to rejoin the treaty.
Some legal experts say the Senate’s consent does not operate in perpetuity after the U.S. leaves a treaty. Others argue that if a president can unilaterally leave a treaty, a future president could rejoin it without a new vote.”
Legally…”Under the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents, the crucial question is not whether Good was actually trying to run Ross down but whether his avowed belief that she posed a threat to him was “objectively reasonable” given “the totality of the circumstances.”
The 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner involved a suspected burglar who was shot while fleeing police. The Supreme Court held that the use of deadly force is unconstitutional in such circumstances “unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
To assess whether a use of force is “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained four years later in Graham v. Connor, judges should consider “the totality of the circumstances,” paying “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” The Court said relevant factors include “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
…
The Justice Department’s policy on the use of force jibes with what the Supreme Court has said. “Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect,” it notes, and “firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles.”
The Justice Department explains that “firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.” The circumstances of the Minneapolis shooting suggest that Ross may have violated that policy.”
The reason so many Trump prosecutions are failing to get indictments is because he is charging people with weak evidence and for political reasons.
“Grand juries have emerged as a major stumbling block for Trump’s drive to use the criminal courts to exact retribution on his perceived political foes.
Federal grand juries operate in near-total secrecy and decide whether prosecutors can bring a criminal indictment in the first place. Unlike trial juries, they don’t need to be unanimous; rather, a majority of their 16 to 23 members must agree to return an indictment. And their only job is to determine if the Justice Department has brought a plausible case — a relatively low standard which led to the cliche that prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
But in the Trump era, grand juries are no longer a rubber stamp. Instead, they’ve become a headache for prosecutors trying to advance controversial Trump policies like mass deportations and militarizing law enforcement. Dozens of recent cases in Washington, D.C., have been met with so-called “no bills” — the shorthand for a grand jury declining to return a bill of indictment. And grand juries in other jurisdictions have turned down high-profile cases that Trump has prioritized.
…
The administration also seems to be losing because it’s pushing for indictments in cases with weak evidence, and due to the unpopularity in some parts of the country of tough tactics against protesters and of policies like Trump’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants. and
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan recently marveled at the “apparent prosecutorial machinations” at work, emphasizing the “unprecedented” actions prosecutors have taken to bring cases — even when grand juries have rebuffed them.
“Most troubling, prosecutors have rushed to charge cases before properly investigating them,” the Washington-based Biden appointee lamented.
…
The Constitution’s requirement that a grand jury approve serious criminal cases was adopted as a safeguard against executive power and political prosecutions. The move stemmed from what many revolutionaries regarded as political trials instituted by British authorities.”
“Trump may have pardoned Cole last year as part of the sweeping clemency that he gave to Jan. 6 offenders on his first day back in office.
…
Trump’s proclamation commuted the sentences of 14 individuals and also granted “a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” This immediately covered roughly 1,500 people, including hundreds of defendants who were charged with assaulting or resisting law enforcement officers.
Lawyers for Cole did not respond to a question about whether they intend to argue that Cole is entitled to a pardon if convicted. But there are several legal and factual points that are worth zeroing in on if they pursue that strategy.
For starters, it does not matter whether Trump specifically intended to pardon the person who planted the pipe bombs. Under the law, it is the text of the pardon that matters — not the subjective intention of the president or the DOJ’s interpretation of it.
…
Cheerleaders of the sweeping Jan. 6 pardon did not bat an eye when Trump knowingly freed people like Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio — leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, respectively, who were convicted at trial of a seditious conspiracy to prevent the transfer of power to Joe Biden. And they have remained silent as some of the people that Trump pardoned have gone on to commit more alleged crimes — a predictable development given the empirical evidence on recidivism rates among convicted felons. Some of these crimes have been explicitly political in nature, including threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
For all that’s happened in the last year, Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon remains one of his most stunning acts since he returned to office.”
“As senators woke up Saturday with questions on President Donald Trump’s audacious decision to order the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, one of their old colleagues was ready with answers.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked the phones in the wee hours of the morning and, in the days since, has played an outsize role in not only formulating the administration’s strategy in Venezuela but explaining it to skeptical lawmakers wary of a protracted military commitment.
That outreach has been to his former Republican colleagues as well as Democrats, including those who see him as a rare Trump official with whom they can maintain a trusted and respectful relationship amid profound policy disputes.
…
“Marco has been evangelical on Latin America for a long time, for a long time — I mean, he’s, you know, a pretty classic neocon who believes that America will generally be greeted as liberators,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another former Foreign Relations colleague. “I didn’t vote for him because I thought he was going to suddenly agree with me on the importance of military restraint overseas.”
Added Kaine, “At the end of the day, he’s going to do what Trump tells him to do.””
“With the Trump administration exerting control over Venezuela, Cuba has lost one of its principal economic patrons and oil suppliers. The island, already in economic dire straits, will face even deeper financial problems unless it finds another government willing to provide it with the oil it once received from Venezuela — the import of which until a week ago it exchanged for money and personnel. Cuba has dodged collapse for decades but Maduro’s capture poses perhaps the greatest threat to the regime since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And a failed state could lead to an exodus of Cubans looking for refuge in the United States.”