All posts tagged "foreign policy"

These men can hit Trump where it hurts. Do they have the courage?

On Monday, as more than 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents — possibly joined by 1,500 active duty military, as Donald Trump threatened — patrol Minneapolis, hundreds of global CEOs and titans of finance and more than 60 prime ministers and presidents gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for the annual confab of the world’s powerful and wealthy, called the World Economic Forum.

This year’s Davos meeting occurs at a time when Trump is not just unleashing his brown shirts on Minneapolis but also dismantling the international order that’s largely been in place since the end of World War II — threatening NATO, withdrawing from international organizations including the UN climate treaty, violating the United Nations Charter by invading Venezuela and abducting Nicolás Maduro, upending established trade rules, and demanding that the U.S. annex Greenland.

He’s even hiked tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland — fellow NATO members that have expressed solidarity with Denmark in its refusal to yield to Trump’s demand to annex Greenland.

According to a text message Trump sent to Norway’s prime minister over the weekend, Trump says one reason he’s seeking to acquire Greenland is he didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump wrote.

I hope the leaders now assembling at Davos speak out against Trump’s tyrannous assault on international laws and rules, and his contempt for every institution established to maintain peace.

Their collective repudiation of Trump would give other CEOs and world leaders cover to express their opposition as well. It could be a tipping point.

Will they? Trump is trying to stop them from doing so.

For example, he announced Saturday that he’s suing JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, headed by one of the most prominent CEOs in the world — Jamie Dimon — who is now in Davos.

Trump said he’s suing JPMorgan “for incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me after the January 6th Protest, a protest that turned out to be correct for those doing the protesting – The Election was RIGGED!”

Rubbish. There’s no evidence that Chase “debanked” Trump. (And obviously no evidence that the 2020 election was “rigged.”) Besides, if Trump thought the bank acted improperly, why would he be suing it now, five years later?

In reality, Trump’s lawsuit has nothing to do with any so-called “debanking.” Trump is suing JPMorgan Chase because last week Dimon came out publicly against Trump’s criminal probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, and apparently Trump worries about what Dimon might say at Davos.

Dimon’s opposition to the criminal investigation was couched in the mildest of terms: “Anything that chips away at [the Fed’s independence] is not a good idea. And in my view, will have the reverse consequences. It’ll increase inflation expectations and probably increase rates over time.”

Yet Dimon’s comment infuriated Trump.

Presumably, the reason Trump says he’ll sue JPMorgan “over the next two weeks” rather than immediately is because Trump wants to maximize the pressure on Dimon.

Dimon has a major speaking role at Davos. If Dimon uses it as an opportunity to blast Trump for taking a wrecking ball to the world economy as well as democracy, he gives cover to every other CEO and many heads of state to criticize Trump, too.

But if Trump can intimidate Dimon into silence, it’s unlikely any other CEO will risk it.

Hence, Trump’s shot across JPMorgan’s bow — aimed not so much at winning a lawsuit against the bank as silencing Dimon and others.

Does Dimon have enough integrity to put the bank’s profits and his own compensation ($770 million for 2025) at risk by speaking the truth — that Trump must be opposed by anyone still possessing power and integrity?

We will see, but I’m not betting on it. Dimon has shown time and again that he has more loyalty to JPMorgan than to the United States. His mild criticism of Trump for undermining the independence of the Fed could reflect no more than concern for his bank’s bottom line.

But who knows? Dimon will soon be retiring. This is his opportunity to be on the right side of history.

To ensure that the assembled CEOs and heads of state are cowed, Trump is traveling to Davos himself and taking with him the largest U.S. delegation ever to attend the meeting, including five Cabinet secretaries and other senior officials.

Will any prime minister or other head of state attending Davos dare repudiate Trump, when Trump is showing no qualms about raising tariffs on, or otherwise punishing, countries that oppose him?

Perhaps, but at most meekly and indirectly. Who wants to taunt the bear?

Yet Dimon and others at Davos must speak out against what is occurring. If there were ever a time for world leadership, it is now.

Davos’s excuse for existing is supposed to be world leadership — although its attendees have not exactly distinguished themselves in the past by their fealty to democracy, social justice, or the rules of international law. Some are directly benefiting from Trump’s tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks. Many occupy their positions precisely because of their reluctance to cause any trouble.

Yet if there were ever a time for them to speak out, it is now. This is their opportunity. It is also their duty. The world needs to hear from world leaders a clear and firm denunciation of the havoc Trump is wreaking.

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

China bombards LinkedIn in 'astounding' effort to recruit US spies: experts

China is not recruiting its spies through meetings in dark alleys, nor by courtship over covert drinks. Rather, the intelligence agency and military of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are using LinkedIn, the professional networking site, to send as many as 30,000 messages per hour to recruit spies, according to a new book, “The Great Heist: China’s Epic Campaign to Steal America’s Secrets.”

David R. Shedd, a former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), called the book he co-wrote with Andrew Badger, a former DIA case officer, “a real, urgent call” to Americans, from corporations to government, to better respond to China’s success in stealing tech and defense innovations.

“I still don't think America has woken up on how serious the problem is,” Shedd told Raw Story.

“We’ve got to take this much more seriously, but also much more urgently, in terms of responding to the threats, because I don't see any let-up by China.”

David R. Shedd (provided photo)

From nanotechnology to chip manufacturing and artificial intelligence, Shedd said, China succeeded in accomplishing ahead of time eight of 10 objectives under “Made in China 2025,” a 10-year national strategic plan by President Xi Jinping to turn his country into a global technology and manufacturing powerhouse.

China is now the leader in 37 out of 44 emerging critical technologies, according to Shedd and Badger.

“They are on a trajectory to overtake us and have overtaken us already in a number of areas, and that's only going to get worse,” Shedd said.

‘An enormous behemoth’

Shedd and Badger interviewed William Evanina, former director of the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center. He offered insight into the use of LinkedIn by China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to contact intelligence targets.

Andrew Badger (photo provided by David Shedd)

“This astounding number — never before reported— showcases Beijing's commitment to mass recruitment that can be best described as a ‘flood the zone’ strategy,” the authors write.

“The MSS doesn't need all its targets to respond. Just a handful can be enough; a single successful recruit can make the entire endeavor worthwhile.”

Examples of LinkedIn outreach might include contacting an academic about writing a research paper or meeting a worker at a coffee shop to discuss their expertise, exchanges possibly unknowingly resulting in intelligence reported back to the MSS, the authors write.

“The MSS is the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, Cyber Command and all other cyber components,” Shedd said.

“It is an enormous behemoth of internal or domestic and international security, and over the … last 13 years, it has become one, if not a premier, service in terms of its capabilities.”

In response to Raw Story’s questions about the use of LinkedIn by the MSS and PLA, Autumn Cobb, a LinkedIn spokesperson, shared links about verification and spotting scams.

‘Threatens lives’

When it comes to China stealing intellectual property from Americans, the stakes are high.

“American military technologies once considered strategic advantages — stealth aircraft, silent propulsion systems, hypersonic missile platforms – are now widely found in the inventories of China’s armed forces,” Shedd and Badger write.

“These thefts are not abstract; they represent the very real threats to the American warfighters who one day may have to face down such advanced technology. The theft of these assets doesn't just threaten markets; it threatens lives.”

Corporations are also threatened.

When Tesla became the first foreign-owned automaker in China, with CEO Elon Musk building a factory in Shanghai from 2019, concerns rose about theft of intellectual property.

The Great Heist (provided image)

Shedd and Badger quote a former senior Tesla staffer: “Elon always worried about the so-called billion-dollar thumb drive. A single USB stick with the Autopilot source code. That was the nightmare.”

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.

‘National security at stake’

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, Shedd said, an apparent “diminishment” of U.S national security policies on China has been observable, compared to the first Trump administration, which took China more seriously.

Shedd speculated that the shift has to do with China’s control of the majority of rare earth minerals, which are used in magnets manufacturing and technology.

President Xi is definitely watching how Trump has made taking over Greenland a priority, as well as Trump’s decision to “run” Venezuela after capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Shedd said.

“My fear is the administration has turned it into everything's transactional,” Shedd said.

“Our national security is at stake, and I … fully expect Xi Jinping to move on Taiwan next year.”

Taiwan is a major U.S. trading partner. In December, the Trump administration announced the largest-ever U.S. arms package for Taiwan, valued at $11 billion.

‘Great Heist’

Prior to Trump’s arrival in the White House, Chinese threats to American intelligence and national security were not a priority for the FBI or DIA, Shedd said.

During his tenure at DIA from 2010 to 2015, Shedd said, much of the agency’s focus was on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, concerns which became “all consuming.”

“There was this almost fear of taking on China operationally, and to really focus in on it was viewed in the FBI counterintelligence as second-rate to Russia,” Shedd said.

“China, I won't say it was a total afterthought, but it certainly wasn't the main focus.”

Shedd and Badger’s book explains how China pulled off its theft of so many American ideas, tracing the effort back to when President Bill Clinton advocated for China to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).

When China joined the WTO in 2001, both Democrats and Republicans had a “naivety” that China would “play by the rules of international trade,” Shedd said.

That set the stage for a flood of Chinese-made, cheaper versions of other country’s products.

“It was framed as diplomacy, as engagement with a potential trading partner, possibly even a future ally,” Shedd and Badger write.

“In hindsight, it was the moment the proverbial virus entered the global trade system and the launching pad for the CCP’s Great Heist against America.”

In 2017, China’s National Intelligence Law legalized espionage, meaning citizens could be required to spy for the CCP.

‘Counter Heist’

To take on China, Shedd said, the U.S. must invest in research and development as well as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education, in which China is "leaping way ahead of us.”

Shedd and Badger also outline a seven-pillar “Counter Heist” strategy to put America on an “active counteroffensive” against China and disrupt the “Chinese espionage apparatus and to reassert America’s place as the world’s innovation superpower.”

If Washington doesn’t get ahead of Beijing’s spying, Shedd said, he fears China will beat the U.S. to a quantum computing breakthrough that will decode all cryptology.

“It will have enormous, dramatic implications for the United States and for the west more generally, and we won't ever have seen it coming,” Shedd said.

The Great Heist is out now

'These numbers are brutal': New Trump poll sends shockwaves

Online reactions rolled in Friday after news that President Donald Trump's foreign policy approval rating had sunk to its lowest yet.

A new Marist poll found that only 37% of adults in the United States approve of how Trump has handled foreign policy, Newsweek reported. The results were gathered from January 12 to 13 and showed that 56% of those polled disapproved of Trump's international actions, while 7% were unsure.

Users on social media had thoughts about the polling results and Trump's policies abroad.

"A majority of Americans (56%) either strongly oppose or oppose the U.S. taking military action in Venezuela. 36% of Americans approve of how President Trump is handling the economy. 57% disapprove. 38% approve of how President Trump is performing in office. 56% disapprove," Sarah Longwell, founder and publisher of the Bulwark, wrote on X.

"How could 38% of those polled still approve of him? None are so blind as those that will not see," technology reporter and author Lance Whitney wrote on X.

"These numbers are brutal—and entirely justified. A majority of Americans finally see him for the profoundly unfit, narcissistic menace he is. Yet 38% remain in the cult. Astonishing," user Dr. Cole wrote on X.

"How can 38% approved of anything he does?" Retired educator Terry Hongell wrote on X.

"If you get your news on X, you probably thought Trump has a 90% approval," political commentator Tom Santos wrote on X.

"I am envious of the six percent of people who are not sure. I will never know what that is like," writer Andy Hutchins wrote on X.

"Buyers remorse, America? Oh well. You were warned. Still you said, let’s do it again!! Not a lot of sympathy here," Canadian novelist Jeffrey Luscombe wrote on X.

Trump's foreign policy approval plummets to historic low

A new poll shows that President Donald Trump's approval rating on his handling of foreign policy has dipped to its lowest since he returned to the White House, according to reports Friday.

The changes in Trump's international policy approval highlighted how Americans have responded to the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and the military incursion of that country, and Trump's continued threats to seize Greenland — signaling a major challenge for the Trump administration and growing concern among voters. Trump's moves could put the Republican Party in a tough spot ahead of the midterms in November.

"These figures represent Trump’s lowest net approval on foreign policy (-19 points) with the pollsters during his second term, with it dropping from 41 percent in July 2025 and 39 percent in April 2025," according to Newsweek.

Other recent polls, including CNN's new polling results Friday and a recent AP-NORC poll, echoed similar responses among voters.

About six in 10 Americans disapprove of Trump's international policies, according to the AP-NORC poll conducted from January 8 to 11. That survey also found that a majority of Americans — 56% — felt Trump had "gone too far" with his use of military interventions in other countries.

The White House has argued that Trump has a different approach compared to past presidents.

"President Trump was not elected to preserve the status quo—he is a visionary leader who is always generating creative ideas to bolster U.S. national security," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Newsweek.

“Many of this president’s predecessors recognized the strategic logic of acquiring Greenland, but only President Trump has had the courage to pursue this idea seriously," Kelly said.

“As the president said, NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States, and Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region,” she added.

There's one way Trump has united the world

Under President Donald Trump, the United States’ reputation among nations of the world has dropped precipitously. Today’s America is no longer admired, respected, or looked up to by practically anyone.

Fear of the US has replaced positive feelings, as America’s vast military and economic power is used by an unprincipled, adventurist president as a cudgel against sovereign nations, often in violation of international law.

Under Trump, America has few friends left. Former allies are resetting relationships with the US, realigning economies for self-preservation, strengthening national defenses, and growing more united in response to a reckless, untrustworthy US. Adversaries such as Russia and China see Trump’s embracement of authoritarianism and disengagement from traditional allies as beneficial to their own strategic interests.

Countries in dire need are deprived of the financial aid America has provided for more than a century. Countries rich in natural resources or strategically located are potential targets for imperialism and exploitation. America’s underlying ethos in its interaction with any country is, “What’s in it for us?”

Trump’s America is selfish, greedy, shallow, bullying, cruel, and arrogant. Its own democracy in shambles, it ridicules the great democracies of Europe for being weak and insufficiently xenophobic, supporting European right-wing extremist factions that threaten those democracies. It turns a blind eye to human rights’ abuses in any country where it can make a buck.

Like Trump, today’s America lacks a moral compass, bereft of any principles to inform and guide its behavior. It is no longer a defender of democracy at home or abroad, a champion of women’s rights, an advocate for the poor, a safe haven for the oppressed, a vigorous foe of racial discrimination, or needless to say, a proponent of truth in government.

Instead, America follows the loathsome, morally bankrupt doctrine of “America First.” In practice, it has meant that America goes it alone, taking whatever it can get its rapacious hands on and the rest of the world be damned.

Not only is “America First” a selfish, cynical worldview, it is stupid. It fails to recognize that America’s great historical success has relied to a great extent on its use of soft power in support of other countries.

An America that functions not only for its own good but for the good of all nations accrues universal goodwill, has made America the leader of the free world, created steadfast universal partners, and prospered. The Trump “America First” doctrine is creating a widely despised, weakened America at odds with even its closest allies, its international influence reduced to saber-rattling adventurism.

Rather than a nation to emulate, Trump’s America is seen by citizens of strong democratic countries as a troubled nation. They are puzzled that the American people would make the mistake of electing Trump a second time and have no confidence in Trump doing the right thing regarding world affairs.

Unlike their own countries, they see an America so beset by gun violence that foreign tourists avoid it for their safety. They see a country with a broken, outrageously expensive health-care system, leaving over 27 million Americans uninsured. They see a country that does nothing to address catastrophic climate change like their countries are doing and exacerbates the problem by relying more heavily on fossil fuels.

Unlike their own countries, they see America’s once esteemed democracy crumbling under the weight of an anti-democratic, autocratic president, a feckless Congress that bows to his will, and a Supreme Court that has ruled the president above the law. They justifiably see their own countries as superior in many ways and are increasingly dismissive of America aside from their trepidation over the existential threat that it increasingly poses.

Under Trump’s presidency, America is on a road to self-destruction, the moral rot at the core of Trumpism infecting the country. Of course, Trump doesn’t care if he drags the country down with him. There are always others to lay the blame on and a deluge of monstrous lies to bury the truth.

In the midterm elections, US citizens have the opportunity to send a powerful message to the world that Trump’s America isn’t our America and that we abhor what he and his spineless allies are doing to the country. We can use the power of the ballot to halt Trump’s assault on democracy and then begin the task of rebuilding America’s democracy and restoring our shattered relationships with our global partners.

Tom Tyner is a freelance editorialist, satirist, political analyst, blogger, author and retired English instructor.

Trump says he invaded Venezuela for them. They may not want what he's offering

On Friday, Donald Trump summoned his largest donors — U.S. oil execs — to the White House, and exhorted them to invest $100 billion in Venezuela’s oil industry. The unspoken through line was that Trump would look ridiculous if they didn’t.

The CEOs weren’t exactly enthusiastic. Venezuela is known as one of the most dangerous places to operate a business, and oil firms in particular have expressed concern about the safety of their operations and their workers.

When Trump asked ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods how long it would take his company to restart operations there, Woods called Venezuela “uninvestable,” suggesting it wasn’t a matter of Trump just snapping his fingers.

First, “significant changes have to be made.” Woods told Trump bluntly, “There are a number of legal and commercial frameworks that would have to be established to even understand what kind of returns we would get on the investment.”

To a failed businessman selling himself as a savvy one, that assessment must have come as a shock.

Why Trump invaded

By now it is obvious to everyone that Trump didn’t topple Maduro to:

Restore democracy after Maduro lost the 2024 election but refused to leave.
Support Maria Machado after Maduro “banned” her candidacy but her coalition won by 37 points anyway.
Protect Venezuelans living under a regime that disappears people.
Better the lives of suffering Venezuelans in any way.

Instead, as Trump and his henchmen have made patently clear, he deployed the U.S. military against a foreign nation to “take back” oil and oil extraction equipment he claims was “stolen” from private investors in 1975. That was the year Venezuela passed the Oil Industry Nationalization Law and first appropriated its oil industry. It was also the year Maduro turned 12.

Trump’s claim Venezuela “stole” land from the U.S. is absurd. The U.S. never owned land there. No companies were kicked out of the country. When the oil industry was nationalized, companies like Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron were compensated, just not at the levels they wanted. They chose, 50 years ago, to let it go.

A failed businessman

After violating international law, mocking in particular the UN Charter that has kept WWIII at bay for 80 years, Trump gave U.S. oil executives their marching orders: they must rebuild Venezuela's fossil fuel industry.

But after bankrupting six businesses, closing one failed business after another, and now killing small companies with illogical tariffs, Trump’s hyped business acumen is thin. As Friday’s meeting made embarrassingly clear, Trump has no clue what it will take to rebuild Venezuela’s rusted-out oil infrastructure. He has not thought through what legal, structural, and market impediments exist, how much those impediments would cost to remove, or how it could be done. He also has no idea how much all of this would cost, or how many years it would take to see a return.

The kicker, to any successful CEO, is that Trump didn’t do this homework before he deposed Venezuela’s president and announced he’d be “running” the country.

Not all oil is the same

Oil in Venezuela is “sour.” This means it is extra-heavy, thick, and higher in sulfur than “sweet oil.” Sulfur must be removed from crude oil during the refining process. The more sulfur, the more refining is needed.

In result, Venezuelan oil is more expensive to extract, process and transport. More intensive industrial techniques are required, mainly specialized equipment for desulfurization (like hydrotreating/hydrocracking). Stricter safety protocols are needed to remove harmful hydrogen sulfide, adding significant costs and complexity.

Pioneer Energy reports that sour crude “presents a threat to both infrastructure and human health, requiring specialized equipment for sour service, safety procedures, frequent maintenance, and PPE and specialized training for workers.”

Although Trump would likely waive away corporate liability for killing workers and poisoning surrounding communities, CEOs know there is no guarantee courts will go along with him.

All major investments depend on the rule of law

The Dallas Federal Reserve confirms that oil investors are worried about a lack of clarity about America’s own economic outlook under Trump. Legal and market instability, along with low oil prices, makes investing in and operating Venezuelan oil fields an even higher-risk endeavor.

A central concern for industry executives is whether Trump “can guarantee the safety of the employees and equipment that companies would need to send to Venezuela, how the companies would be paid, whether oil prices will rise enough to make Venezuelan crude profitable, and the status of Venezuela’s membership in the OPEC oil exporters cartel.”

The political risk is of paramount concern. As Carrie Filipetti, former deputy assistant secretary for Cuba and Venezuela told Politico, “It’s not just about getting rid of Maduro. It’s also about making sure that the legitimate opposition comes into power.”

History also matters. Chris Perez asks in his poignant substack, ‘How will Trump guarantee Big Oil that their investments will not be renationalized?’ How indeed. The only way to guarantee that is through prolonged U.S. operational and military presence, for which American taxpayers have little appetite.

Even without regime change, there’s climate change and pending legal liability. Big Oil has known since the 1950s that their product is killing the environment, but has lied about it for decades. Looking at pending legal dockets, that bill may soon become due. Then there’s legal uncertainty affecting safety, contractual relations, market regulations, import/export controls, OPEC, and economic controls, all of which would make or Venezuelan investments.

Given that the rule of law under Trump is already on life support, businesses are taking a wait and see approach, even here. Trump commanding his donors to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry under these facts while he “runs” the country sounds like delusional gibberish.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

This contradictory Trump attack revealed his true, appalling colours

Under international law, all nations own the natural resources found within their borders. Not just rich nations, not just powerful ones; all nations possess the inherent right to consume, extract, preserve or even waste their own natural resources according to their own self-determined needs.

This basic premise, a foundational pillar of global stability, is reinforced throughout the United Nations Charter supporting state sovereignty and self-determination in Articles 1 and 55, and is spelled out in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States granting every State “full permanent sovereignty ... over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities.”

Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, a nation cannot use force on the sovereign territory of another country without its consent, or without the authorization of the UN Security Council, unless the use of force is in self-defense.

Following the horrors of the trenches, Hitler, and 90 million deaths in two world wars, the UN Charter was designed to stop nations from doing exactly what Trump just did in Venezuela.

On Jan. 3, under Trump’s direction and without congressional authority, U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a nighttime raid, all while U.S. forces continued seizing Venezuela’s oil and struck military bases, killing at least 80 people who posed no prior threat to the U.S.

Overnight, the international order of sovereignty and the rule of law marched backward into Trump’s Neanderthal world of brute force, while Big Oil-aligned Fox News cheered.

Dispensing with democracy to serve the oil industry

Maduro ruled through repression, corruption, media control, and singular brutality. Human Rights Watch reported that Maduro’s regime had systematically “killed, tortured, detained, and forcefully disappeared people” for the crime of seeking democratic change. Although, like Trump, Maduro still had the support of 30 percent of his citizens, he will not be missed.

Yet despite toppling him, Trump left Maduro’s brutality machine in place, grievously disappointing Venezuelans who danced in the streets. Trump told reporters Maduro’s own Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, would remain in power, but only so long as she “does what we want,” to which Ms. Rodríguez responded, “What is being done to Venezuela is a barbarity” — before later softening her tone.

Trump apparently chose Rodríguez for her management expertise in the Venezuelan oil industry as well as Venezuela’s murderous intelligence apparatus. She also enjoys strong ties with U.S. Republicans in the oil industry. After tapping Rodríguez, Trump threatened her, saying, “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”

A petty man gets his petty revenge

Following the attack, Trump announced that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela with oil-wealth aspirations more conceptual than concrete.

Like his oft-alluded to “concept of a plan” for health care that has still not materialized, Trump said he would provide the “vision for how Venezuela should be run,” and commanded his hand-picked leader to carry out his vision under threat of force.

In Rodríguez, Trump named a leader of the same government he just labeled illegitimate, while dismissing political heir apparent María Corina Machado. Machado, a national political hero, won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for leading Venezuela’s struggle for democracy in the face of Maduro’s cruel and ever-expanding authoritarianism. After Maduro “banned” her candidacy, her political movement still defeated him in the 2024 presidential election by a 37-point margin.

Despite her electoral victory, chops, and 65 percent support among Venezuelans, Trump claims Machado “lacks the respect” needed to run Venezuela.

Inside sources say Machado offended Trump’s ego when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize he covets. Put a pin in the absurdity of a peace prize for a man who deploys the military against his own country, murders people in fishing boats, and now threatens violent expansion against peaceful neighbors.

All for the love of oil

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, to which an unscrupulous and dangerous U.S. president has now laid claim, on behalf of private oil investors. It is also being led by a close ally of Maduro hand-picked by Trump, who apparently intends to be puppet master and intervenor to an already corrupt and brutal regime.

Trump told reporters administration officials would designate “various people” to “run” Venezuela, “and we’re gonna let you know who those people are,” but the lack of detail has led many to question why there was no detailed plan in place before Maduro was toppled. It’s like Trump wrecking healthcare for 20 million Americans without first putting an alternative in place, and will similarly lead to loss of life.

Even though Maduro will not be missed, the end cannot justify the means where the end includes regional instability, economic collapse, and losses still unknowable. As Trump flirts with boots on the ground in Venezuela, licking his Cro-Magnon lips at the taste of raw brute power, he has begun threatening Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland in earnest.

“Just war’” theory, on which the post-World War II democratic world order is built, depends on and expects restraint from the powerful. Trump has again acted without restraint, without congressional authority, and without the concept of a plan for what comes next.

By eschewing any notion of restoring democracy to the Venezuelan people, Trump has revealed his imperialist Big Oil mission as unadorned thuggery.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

‘A lot of anxiety’: Top senators fear Trump is serious about grabbing Greenland

WASHINGTON — Greenland’s the talk of the town, which even has many Republicans nervous.

“The rhetoric going on now is irresponsible,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Raw Story.

The rhetoric — including the White House declaring “all options” are on the table when it comes to obtaining the Danish-governed territory — has only been ratcheting up since last weekend, when President Donald Trump deployed the U.S. military to invade Venezuela and capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

“You have to take it more seriously than we did six months ago,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Raw Story.

“Did you see this coming with Maduro?” Raw Story pressed.

“I'm still so naive that I took them at their word during their classified briefing in December when they told us they weren't interested in regime change,” Murphy said. “Yeah, it's hard to take any of this seriously, given that they have had very little compunction misleading us in the past.”

Murphy was speaking as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went to Capitol Hill to give confidential briefings about the Venezuela operation.

With Rubio now slated to meet with Danish officials to discuss Greenland, an autonomous territory of the European nation, many on Capitol Hill are reassessing previous political complacency.

“I said all last year, ‘Ah, you know, nothing will come of it,’” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told Raw Story. “Obviously, it's at the head of my priority list now.”

Even many of President Trump’s GOP allies fear Congress will once again be left in the dark.

“It's hard to say what he's inching towards,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) told Raw Story. “They've kind of been a little bit all over the board.”

‘Wouldn't want to do it by force’

“In the New Year, where’s Greenland on your priority list?” Raw Story asked Sen. James Lankford (R-OK).

“Greenland was not on my bingo card two years ago,” Lankford said. “I don't even know how to answer that question.”

“Are you worried that this could be a distraction?” Raw Story pressed. “Or do you think it is key strategically?”

“No. There's some key strategic aspects there dealing with their own coast and dealing with the Arctic, there's no question about that, so that's a key relationship,” Lankford said. “It’s why we have a base there and have had a base there for years.”

To many Republicans, that relationship’s worked — so they don’t see any need to alter it.

“I wouldn't say it's a top priority for me, no,” Sen. Capito said.

While most Republicans on Capitol Hill don’t want to even entertain the thought of using the U.S. military to capture Greenland, they’re open to reassessing the relationship.

“It’s in our strategic interest to enhance our presence there,” Capito said. “I don't think that it's something that is a top priority for us, and I don't think it's something that needs to be grasped.

“Some kind of mutually agreed enhancement of our presence there would probably be a good start.”

Even so-called foreign policy doves — or isolationists — in the GOP are now openly courting the island country.

“It’d be nice if Greenland would decide they'd like to join the U.S.,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Raw Story.

“But I wouldn't want to do it by force. The only way that you'd convince Greenland to be part of the United States is by offering them things that would be to their benefit, not telling them we're going to invade them.”

‘Talk to the President’

With Russia’s war against Ukraine already straining NATO, bellicose chatter from the White House has U.S. allies nervous.

“Any type of move on Greenland, it'll threaten the existence of NATO, which will be inviting the end of the post-World War II international system,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) — the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee — told Raw Story.

“They'll be conceding, I think, to the Russians influence in Europe that they don't have now — and China.”

But few doubt that President Trump seriously wants the U.S. to take over Greenland — a reality which means many lawmakers are now fielding calls from their NATO counterparts.

“I'm worried that even these threats, even this rhetoric has stirred our NATO allies up so much,” Murkowski said.

“I've talked to the Danish ambassador, talking to my friends, the parliamentarians in other Arctic countries — the Nordic countries — and, yeah, there's a lot of anxiety.”

Still, even with Greenland the talk of this town, many Republicans still just shrug when talk turns that way.

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) is chair of the nominally powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee but when Raw Story asked him about Greenland, he simply responded: “I don’t know.”

“Talk to the President,” Risch said.

'Cocksure boor' Trump's disastrous gamble predicted in long-forgotten memoir

Foreign leaders seeking to cope with Donald Trump should not shower the U.S. president with flattery and gold gifts, a former British defense secretary said: they should read a near-forgotten 1991 book that describes Trump as a “cocksure boor who pays precious little attention to detail” and a “a lad who literally grew too big for his britches.”

“You only have to meet people, do the job, read the room to realize that sucking up to Donald Trump, giving him gold watches from Switzerland, doesn't work,” said Sir Ben Wallace, British defense secretary from 2019 to 2023, referring to a common tactic among world leaders regarding the U.S. president.

“There's an amazing book called Trumped! written in 1991 by one of his casino bosses from Atlantic City. It's one of the best reads you can read, because it's not written [as] a sort of kiss-and-tell, ‘I knew the president.’

“… And in there, right in the middle of it, is Trump's obsession with wearing a suit, for example. It goes way back, right? If we'd had good quality advice to people like Zelensky, we would have known that those are the sort of things that touch [Trump] off.”

Speaking on the One Decision podcast, which he co-hosts, Wallace was referring to an incident in February last year when Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was harangued in the Oval Office by Trump and Vice President JD Vance, in part for not wearing a suit as he sought continued U.S. aid against Russian invaders.

A year on, the U.K. is among countries attempting to cope with Trump in the aftermath of a U.S. raid on Caracas that resulted in the seizure and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and amid Trump’s renewed threats to forcibly take Greenland, which is governed by Denmark, another NATO member.

Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump — His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall, by John R. O’Donnell, was published in 1991, when Trump was a New York property magnate subject to high-profile business reverses.

Few then predicted a Trump presidency, let alone a concerted attempt to wreck the post-war international order.

O’Donnell’s portrait is not flattering, revealing now familiar character traits including germaphobia, crudity, racism and cheapness.

One contemporary review described an “evenhanded, knowledgeable account” of “a decidedly dull boy whose life story could as easily have been subtitled ‘The Banality of Narcissism.’”

Kirkus continued: “Trump emerges as a cocksure boor who pays precious little attention to detail and pins the blame for his own misjudgments on subordinates. While he seems surprisingly dumb when it comes to weighing a deal's downside risks against its potential rewards, he apparently suffers from near-terminal overconfidence.”

Wallace’s podcast conversation touched on similar themes.

Speaking to Wallace and co-host Kate McCann, a reporter, Philip Gordon, once national security adviser to former vice president Kamala Harris, said he had “sympathy for the dilemmas of the European situation.

“They are dependent on the United States. They're worried about Trump retribution. They're pleading with him to try to stand with them on Ukraine because they fear that without the United States, they're really vulnerable to Russia and not strong enough.

“They're divided. You have some countries willing and ready to really criticize the United States for violating international law and others not. So I understand it and I get it. But the bottom line is, yes, Europe looks irrelevant in this situation. Collectively, I think this has been a trend in the first year of Trump foreign policy.

“Europeans trying to preserve support from the United States through flattery and nice words for Trump and hoping that if they're nice to him and they don't offend him, he'll support them. And each time he just responds to that, again, with contempt.”

Gordon also discussed working for President Barack Obama, who he said “was often accused of thinking things through too much.

“We [thought] about Syria and he would be, second-order effect, third-order, fourth. And … in high levels of government, you can be paralyzed if you worry about everything that could happen because lots of things can happen and you have to be sometimes decisive and take risks.

“But if Obama was guilty of thinking a little bit too much about second-, third- and fourth-order effects, Trump is guilty of not seeming to think about them at all.

“And I think that's what this is in Venezuela. Even when he first started saying, ‘Maduro has to go, we're putting an armada in place,’ I don't think he … was inclined to intervene. And then Maduro pissed him off by dancing and rejecting him and making fun of him and he decided to do it. I think that's where we are now too. But that's the big risk: they don't have a good answer to what next if Plan A doesn't work.”

On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Democratic senators told Raw Story they feared such an outcome in Venezuela, for now still led by the Maduro regime, if without its figurehead.

According to Gordon, Trump’s Plan A “is to hope that, Okay, they got Maduro, maybe his cronies will be so afraid of the next wave of intervention that they'll do a deal and they'll pay back U.S. oil majors for money they owe them, they'll give them opportunities to invest in Venezuela, and they'll, as Trump says, do what he says.

“So that's the best-case scenario, but the worst case and arguably even more likely case is that they don't … you have the security services, the corrupt ministers of defense and interior, the gangs, the Cubans, the Russians, the Chinese, and they will have every interest in not doing that.

“And I don't think Trump has an answer to that question … Because, we're not there. When Trump says we're running Venezuela, we're not because we're not there. It's all just based on the hope that the fear of Donald Trump will lead them to do our bidding. That's just really risky.

“… If Plan A doesn't work, I don't think he knows what Plan B is. And if Plan B is to have to use force and actually go into Venezuela and do this ourselves, then we run into the same sorts of post-regime challenges that we've seen in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya, and it usually doesn't go well for the United States.”

‘What the hell are you hiding from?’ Trump and Rubio under fire over secret briefings

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are “hid[ing] in a box somewhere” to avoid public accountability over their armed intervention in Venezuela and extraction of President Nicolás Maduro, a prominent Democratic senator charged, after a closed-door briefing Wednesday.

“The Trump administration chooses to post as many videos as they want publicly to make their point, but they don't want to face the American people with an unclassified briefing,” Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) told Raw Story at the Capitol.

“Why the hell is the Trump administration scared to face the American people in an open setting, before the Senate, before the House? I don't understand that.

“They keep wanting to hide in a box somewhere. I don't get it. We can't talk about any of this because it's all in a classified setting, but the Department of Justice is doing it all under a sealed, classified setting.

“Show the American people. What the hell are you hiding from?”

On Wednesday, Rubio, a former Florida U.S. senator, led briefings on Capitol Hill, accompanied by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“I don't think that Secretary Rubio has been honest with the American people about a lot of things. Sadly, I think highly of Secretary Rubio, and it's disappointing to see how he chooses to engage with the American people,” Luján said.

“There needs to be an unclassified hearing so that all these questions can be asked and answered.”

‘Very proud of our military’

After months of pressure on Venezuela, including lethal strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats, U.S. forces swooped into Caracas Saturday, seizing President Maduro and his wife before transporting them to New York to face narcotics and weapons charges.

President Trump has hailed the operation as an unqualified success and repeatedly trumpeted favorable U.S. deals concerning Venezuela’s huge oil reserves.

Most Democrats and a handful of Republicans had already criticized the administration for bombing boats without congressional approval. Those critical voices have only gotten louder in recent days, because, once again, Congress was not notified before the Caracas operation.

The briefing from Rubio and Hegseth confirmed “everything that's been out in the general sense,” said Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), also noting previous Democratic opposition to Maduro staying in power.

Asked about confusion over whether the U.S. is “running” Venezuela, as President Trump has said, or if the decapitated but standing Maduro regime is in charge, as seems the case, Fetterman said: “Plans are out, and now it's an evolving situation.

“Of course, there are concerns. Obviously.”

Veteran Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) voiced similar concerns.

“I think some of their justifications remain the same as the previous briefing,” she told Raw Story, referring to a session late last year about the strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats.

“They're claiming that it was not about regime change.

“We have more questions. And then we requested that they tell us when we can have public briefings, and they wouldn't answer that question.”

“Should that have been covered?” Raw Story asked.

“Yeah,” Duckworth said.

‘Totally America First’

A daring raid on a foreign capital to extract a president and his wife might seem contrary to the principles of “America First” — Trump’s tried and tested campaign slogan regarding avoiding foreign entanglements.

But Republicans emerging from Wednesday’s briefing backed the administration.

“It’s totally ‘America First,’” Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) told Raw Story. “Stopping drugs flowing into our country and holding [Venezuela] accountable for it is totally America First.”

Democrats and other critics point out that Venezuela has no role in the international flow of fentanyl, the chief cause of drug deaths in the U.S., and a negligible part in the flow to American shores of cocaine and other drugs.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said Democrats were “always going to have their opinion about stuff because of their hatred towards President Trump.”

Asked if he was personally “behind this effort” and thought it would be “easily wrapped up down there, no boots on the ground,” Mullin said simply: “There's no boots on the ground.”

Nor has there yet been a change of regime in Caracas. Nonetheless, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) seemed to welcome that prospect.

“There'll be a new government one day, and there'll be a lot of business activity between the United States and Venezuela that didn't exist before this,” Graham, a prominent foreign policy hawk, told Raw Story.

Asked if he was open to similar U.S. intervention in Colombia, about whose leftist government Trump has made ominous remarks, Graham did not answer, instead seeking the sanctuary of a senators-only elevator.