Connect with us

News

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Published

on

Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.

Here’s a survey.

Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion

While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

Advertisement

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.

“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.

Advertisement

“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”

At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.

“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”

GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.

“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”

Advertisement

“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion

Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.

“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.

Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”

Advertisement

California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.

“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.

“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”

“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.

News

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

Published

on

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”

“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”

Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”

Advertisement

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”

The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.

“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.

Advertisement

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.

“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”

Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.

This is a developing story.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Published

on

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

transcript

transcript

Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”

Advertisement
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Published

on

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.

The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” 

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

Advertisement

The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region. 

Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it. 

The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.

In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees. 

“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.

Advertisement

In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”

On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall. 

Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.

Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending