Connect with us

News

Black Lives Matter Plaza Is Gone. Its Erasure Feels Symbolic.

Published

on

Black Lives Matter Plaza Is Gone. Its Erasure Feels Symbolic.

This week, government workers near the White House, on two blocks lined with luxury hotels and union headquarters, used a jackhammer and a pickax to tear up a mural that read “Black Lives Matter,” painted on the road during the long hot summer of 2020.

The symbolism was potent.

The erasure of the bold yellow letters of Black Lives Matter Plaza, installed on 16th Street after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, was a concession from Washington’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, who faced threats from congressional Republicans to cut off federal funds to the capital city if the words were not removed. But to Black Americans grappling with a fierce resurgence of forces that they believe are beating back the causes of social justice and civil rights, it felt like much more.

That plaza was “spiritual,” said Selwyn Jones, an uncle of Mr. Floyd. “But them taking the time to destroy it, that’s making a statement, man. That’s making a statement, like we don’t care.”

Even those who did not put much faith in the mural to begin with were taken aback.

Advertisement

“Bowser caving immediately to the faintest hint of pressure on the name of the plaza is somehow even more cynical than the move to name it Black Lives Matter Plaza in the first place,” said Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, a Black associate professor of philosophy at Georgetown.

“We saw the largest protest movement in our nation’s history, a unique and powerful moment where it seemed anything was possible, and you had the numbers to do anything,” lamented Samuel Sinyangwe, executive director of the nonprofit Mapping Police Violence, without exaggeration.

The millions of dollars that flowed to groups with “Black Lives Matter” in their titles have slowed to a trickle, forcing some to retrench, others to close shop. The Black Lives Matter Foundation Inc., for instance, raised a staggering $79.6 million in fiscal year 2021. The next year, that figure was down to almost $8.5 million. By 2023, it was about $4.7 million, with expenses of $10.8 million, according to records tracked by the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica.

As it recedes, Mr. Trump has sought to bury it. In two short months, his administration has moved to end diversity, equity and inclusion as goals of the federal government and pressured private industry to do the same. It shut down the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, which tracked the misconduct records of federal law enforcement officers.

Words with even a hint of racial, ethnic or gender sensitivities are being struck from federal websites and documents. Just this week, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to eliminate offices responsible for addressing the disproportionately high levels of pollution facing poor communities, often with predominantly minority residents.

Advertisement

The billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk has even said pardoning George Floyd’s killer was “something to think about.”

Beyond Washington, journalists and academics who vaulted to stardom a half decade ago on their reinterpretations of history, their views on racism and their valorizing of the African American experience find themselves sometimes marginalized, and often under attack.

“I feel we are going backwards,” Mr. Jones said.

Given the swift change of circumstances, some in the Black Lives Matter movement say they must answer an existential question: How do they pursue racial justice amid so fierce a backlash?

“Folks got sold a bag of goods under this idea of racism and xenophobia,” said Addys Castillo, a social justice organizer and law student in Connecticut.

Advertisement

But, she said, the administration’s policies will hurt all those who aren’t wealthy, “so if there was ever a time to have a multiracial, cross cultural movement, this would be the time.”

James Forman Jr., a former public defender, an author and a fierce critic of the criminal justice system and its effects on people of color, said persuading all Americans that a system that has harmed Black Americans has harmed them too is difficult — but crucial.

“It’s always been hard to be able to get people to see two things at the same time: the ways in which these institutions disproportionately harm Black people, and the way that these institutions harm all people,” he said.

Ms. Bowser, who is Black, told laid-off federal workers earlier this month that the mural was a significant part of the city’s history, but circumstances have changed. “Now our focus is on making sure our residents and our economy survive,” she said.

Observers say the racial justice movement that crescendoed after Mr. Floyd, an unarmed Black man, was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer in May 2020 had some successes, at least in raising public awareness about structural racism and police violence.

Advertisement

Protesters and Black activists pressed people to evolve from support for civil rights as “mere etiquette” to “an understanding that actual institutions, political institutions, criminal justice institutions had to be challenged to work differently,” Mr. Táíwò said.

But the movement must mature, said Representative Wesley Bell, a Missouri Democrat who rose to prominence after the police shooting of a Black teenager, Michael Brown, in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. Mr. Bell, who is Black, defeated one of the most demonstrative Black progressives in the House, Cori Bush, in a heated primary last year, promising voters to bring Greater St. Louis a more sober, effective leadership.

“Some folks think it’s just about getting out and protesting,” said Mr. Bell, who advocates moving the social justice cause from the streets to the corridors of power. “The best protesters do not make the best politicians, and the best politicians don’t make the best protesters.”

Black Lives Matter began as an online hashtag after the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager. But the phrase coalesced into a movement after the killing of Michael Brown the following year.

From the beginning the phrase drew attacks.

Advertisement

“When you say ‘Black lives matter,’ that’s inherently racist,” the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said in 2016. “Black lives matter. White lives matter. Asian lives matter. Hispanic lives matter.”

Four years later, as he campaigned unsuccessfully for re-election, Mr. Trump accused supporters of Black Lives Matter of “spreading violence in our cities” and “hurting the Black community.”

But in the summer of 2020, millions of Americans took to the streets from all walks of life. Conservative voices, like the president of the Heritage Foundation and Mr. Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, lamented Mr. Floyd’s murder.

Some of the protests turned violent. A Minneapolis police station was burned to the ground. The calls for incremental police reform became drowned by the rallying cry, “defund the police.”

And that gave Mr. Trump his most potent line of attack against the movement. He reframed a cause that hoped to protect Black lives as a lawless assault on police officers. In his telling, the leaders of the movement were avatars for every left-wing cause in his sights.

Advertisement

Because of the Black Lives Matter movement’s decentralized structure, many groups were lumped together and faced intense scrutiny, often with negative consequences for the movement as a whole.

“Any strategic or tactical misstep for the movement is going to produce more severe and swift negative consequences,” Mr. Forman said.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, for instance, faced criticism that it misused funds, including the purchase of a $6 million California home.

“I’m not particularly happy with the organization Black Lives Matter, because of their shenanigans,” said Mr. Jones.

“Black Lives Matter, they are not a perfect organization,” said Angela Harrison, an aunt of Mr. Floyd. “They probably made mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But their intention was for the good.”

Advertisement

But mistakes added up. The movement to examine historical ways racism has shaped current disparities in areas such as housing and wealth creation gave way to the opposite. Conservative activists successfully pushed state governments to ban teachings that they said made people feel inherently responsible for actions committed in the past.

Corporations that once made a show of racial, ethnic and gender sensitivities have begun rolling back their diversity initiatives, seemingly more afraid of the conservative activists fighting them than the social justice activists who had supported them, said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

That, he said, “could certainly suggest that maybe the belief isn’t strongly held, but also more of a sense of resignation.”

Mr. Sinyangwe is taking a long view and sees parallels and patterns with many historical movements for social justice.

“This movement has followed the trajectory that freedom struggles in the United States have always tended to follow,” he said.

Advertisement

A marginalized community pushes back against injustice. Some of its demands are met, but others don’t materialize. So they push for more transformative changes only to be met with backlash. “And that’s sort of how America does business,” he said. “That’s not the fault of anyone’s slogan.”

In June 2020, after Mr. Trump marshaled federal law enforcement and the military to violently confront protesters outside the White House, Ms. Bowser announced that she was renaming a street just off the protest site “Black Lives Matter Plaza,” complete with 48-foot letters on the pavement.

The mayor’s decision to remove the letters with Mr. Trump’s return to power has been met with ambivalence. Some agree that Ms. Bowser has more pressing concerns, such as budget cuts and the slashing of the federal work force in her city.

“The painting ain’t saving any of us,” said Ms. Castillo.

Others are gearing up for a fight that will outlive any one presidency.

Advertisement

“I don’t believe we’ll ever be in a place where there won’t be a fight,” Mr. Bell said. “But I will say this — I don’t think that President Trump can stop progress either.”

News

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Published

on

Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela

Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba has announced the death of 32 ⁠of its ​citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on ‌January 5 and ‌6 in ⁠honour of those killed and that ‌funeral arrangements would be announced.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.

The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.

Advertisement

Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.

Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.

He has previously denied criminal involvement.

Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.

Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.

‘A lot of Cubans’ killed

US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.

He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.

Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.

But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.

Advertisement

“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.

“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”

The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.

The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.

But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.

Advertisement

While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.

Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

News

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Published

on

Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN

Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.

Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.

Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.

“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.

Advertisement

Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.

She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.

Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.

As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.

In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.

Advertisement

Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.

José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”

“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.

“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.

On the path to an understanding with the US?

Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.

Advertisement

“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.

Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.

“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.

“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.

In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.

“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.

Reuters news agency contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending