WASHINGTON, D.C.  – A dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy is sparking street parties across Venezuelan communities from Miami to Madrid. President Donald J. Trump has directed a military mission that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, a move supporters say has ended one of the region’s most feared regimes. As Venezuelan expats celebrate, critics and Democrats are turning their anger toward the president, not the leader they spent years condemning.

The mission, known as “Liberty Dawn,” took place in the early hours of January 5, 2026. U.S. special forces, working alongside Venezuelan opposition contacts, raided Maduro’s secure compound in Caracas. He was detained with little reported resistance.

Maduro has long been accused of holding power through rigged elections, violent repression, and deep ties with hostile governments, including Russia and Iran. Trump approved the operation after returning to office with a decisive win in November 2024. Supporters call it a clear win. Democrats in Congress and many media voices call it reckless, and their response is exposing a sharp political split.

Democrats Spent Years Condemning Maduro

For more than a decade, many Democrats have described Maduro as an authoritarian leader who wrecked Venezuela’s economy and fueled a humanitarian disaster. During the Obama years, early attempts at diplomacy faded as Venezuela’s political crisis worsened after Hugo Chavez died in 2013.

By 2017, Democrats were publicly attacking Maduro’s government. Then-Senator Kamala Harris, among others, used harsh language, calling it a “narco-state” and pointing to corruption and human rights violations.

Under President Joe Biden, that message got louder. In 2021, Biden labeled Maduro’s government “illegitimate” and backed sanctions aimed at limiting oil revenue. Secretary of State Antony Blinken regularly called for Maduro to step aside and stressed the need for real elections.

Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, supported measures condemning the regime’s crackdown on dissent. That included the detention of opposition figures such as Juan Guaido, whom the U.S. recognized as interim president in 2019.

High-profile Democrats echoed the theme, even when they disagreed on how the U.S. should respond. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, while warning against U.S. military action in other situations, has pointed to the harm that Maduro’s policies caused and the pressure created by Venezuelan migration. Sen. Bernie Sanders also criticized the government as “authoritarian” and urged international pressure for a return to democracy.

Liberal-leaning outlets, including MSNBC and The New York Times, have published repeated reports on Maduro’s ties to criminal groups, media suppression, and severe shortages affecting millions.

The shared conclusion was simple: Maduro needed to go. Democrats argued for isolation, sanctions, and support for opposition efforts, while also accusing Republicans of being too eager to use force.

Trump Acts, After Years of Pressure

Trump’s second term has leaned hard into direct action abroad. Building on his first-term approach, which included recognizing Guaido and tightening sanctions, Trump approved the raid after intelligence reports claimed Maduro planned to expand ties with China and Russia, including possible military basing that could affect U.S. interests in the Caribbean.

Supporters of the mission say it was tightly executed, caused limited civilian harm, and secured key sites such as oil facilities. Maduro is now in U.S. custody and faces extradition tied to narcoterrorism and corruption charges. Venezuelan interim officials have started transition discussions, with elections promised by mid-2026.

Celebrations followed quickly. In Miami’s Little Havana, crowds gathered for spontaneous parades, waving Venezuelan and American flags together. “Trump did what no one else could,” said Maria Gonzalez, a Venezuelan exile who left in 2018. “We’ve waited years for this freedom.” Similar scenes played out in Bogota and Madrid. In Caracas, opposition supporters reportedly faced brief clashes with loyalists before the balance shifted.

Regional reactions have been mixed but active. Allies, including Colombia and Brazil, praised the move. Mexico, while cautious, acknowledged it could calm a destabilized region. At the United Nations, the Security Council has remained divided, though no broad condemnation has taken hold. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, reappointed by Trump, defended the mission as a necessary action against a failed state tied to terror networks.

Democrats Reverse Course on Venezuela

As celebrations spread, Democratic leaders moved fast to denounce the operation. House Democrats, led by Jeffries, introduced a resolution calling the raid “reckless unilateralism” that could inflame tensions with Russia and Iran. Schumer criticized Trump from the Senate floor, calling the action “imperialist adventurism,” even though he and others had long demanded Maduro’s removal.

That shift is the core of the backlash from Trump’s allies. They argue Democrats spent years calling Maduro a tyrant, then attacked the one president who removed him. They also point to reports that the Biden team considered covert steps, based on leaked documents said to be dated to 2023, but stepped back due to political risk.

The media response has shifted, too. Some CNN commentary focused on due process for Maduro, even from voices that previously described him as a violent strongman. The Washington Post editorial board, which in 2022 urged tougher action, now warns about blowback and possible violations of international law.

Trump supporters argue the real issue is personal and political, not policy. They point to long-running clashes over investigations, impeachments, and elections, and say those battles now shape every response. They also cite security claims tied to Maduro’s government, including drug trafficking routes into the U.S., alleged support for Hezbollah-linked operatives, and growing Chinese influence in Latin America.

They connect the moment to the U.S.-Mexico border debate as well. Under Biden, Venezuelan migration surged, adding pressure on cities and federal systems. Trump’s supporters say a stable Venezuela could reduce the flow. They argue Democrats would rather attack Trump than admit the operation may help.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, summed up that view: “It’s politics over people. Democrats would rather see Maduro free than admit Trump was right.”

Even inside the party, there are signs of disagreement. Former Sen. Joe Manchin, now retired, has offered quiet praise for the result, while progressive leaders, including Ocasio-Cortez, have blasted the operation as a “neo-colonial” move.

To Trump’s supporters, this fight fits a larger trend. They say Democrats demand bold outcomes, fail to deliver them, then attack the results when Republicans succeed. They point to earlier fights over the Abraham Accords, which critics dismissed at the time, and to the battle against ISIS, where Trump’s approach drew heavy debate.

In their view, the Maduro operation is the latest example: call for change, hesitate on execution, then condemn the leader who takes action.

Venezuela’s next chapter is still unclear, and the risks are real. Even so, the capture of Maduro has created a new opening for political transition. Trump’s backers see it as decisive leadership that reshapes the region. Democrats who oppose it may find themselves defending a position that voters, and history, won’t reward.

Related News:

Democrats Seethe Over Trump’s Bold Venezuela Strike as Emergency Caucus Looms

St. Paul, Minnesota- Governor Tim Walz said Tuesday that he won’t run for re-election in the next Minnesota governor’s race. The announcement lands as a long-running investigation into a major public fraud case keeps pressure on his administration and has chipped away at trust in state leadership.

Walz, a two-term governor and former vice presidential candidate, shared the news at a quickly scheduled press conference at the State Capitol. He rejected personal blame for the scandal and instead pointed to former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers.

Walz’s decision reshapes the race in a state that has leaned Democratic for decades. Political watchers say the fallout could open the door for a stronger Republican campaign in 2026. As more information about the fraud comes out, Walz’s approach has sparked criticism from both parties and raised doubts about how progressive policies are managed and monitored in Minnesota.

Feeding Our Future Case: A Costly Breakdown

The controversy centers on the Feeding Our Future scandal, a sweeping fraud scheme tied to federal child nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effort started as a way to help feed kids during a crisis.

It later grew into an operation that prosecutors say drained an estimated $2.5 billion in taxpayer funds, far above earlier public figures of $250 million. Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of people and groups with crimes that include wire fraud, money laundering, and bribery. Authorities say money meant for meals went to luxury cars, real estate purchases, and accounts overseas.

The Minnesota Department of Education oversaw parts of the program during Walz’s time in office. Audits later described weak oversight and fast growth during the pandemic. Investigators said the state approved claims for huge numbers of meals that were never served.

Some nonprofits reported feeding more children than lived in entire counties. State Auditor Julie Blaha described the situation in a recent report as more than a simple mistake, pointing to ignored warning signs and repeated failures.

Walz’s role has drawn heavy attention. He publicly supported expanding the program and described it as a key support for families. Critics say his administration pushed money out quickly without strong checks, which made the program easier to exploit. Federal agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have pointed to gaps in state verification steps that allowed false claims to keep coming in.

A Tough Press Conference and a Focus on Washington

At the Capitol, Walz took a firm tone and refused to accept responsibility for the scope of the fraud. He argued the scandal grew out of pandemic confusion and blamed the Trump administration for poor federal direction. He said unclear guidance and political fights over aid programs left states struggling to respond.

Walz also accused Republicans in Congress of making the problem worse through budget decisions and resistance to oversight changes. He said GOP attacks on safety net programs pushed states into quick fixes, and he pointed to what he described as blocked efforts to fund stronger fraud detection tools. In his view, partisan fights slowed the work that might have flagged problems earlier.

What Walz did not offer was a clear admission of failures inside state government. When reporters asked about the role of his administration, he shifted focus back to Washington and described Minnesota as dealing with a flawed system.

He highlighted arrests and anti-fraud steps taken after the scandal broke, presenting those actions as proof that his team responded. Republican lawmakers dismissed that message. Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson said the governor was blaming everyone but himself and that Minnesota deserved straight answers.

Some Democratic supporters accepted Walz’s explanation, but others did not. Moderates and independents have appeared less patient. A Star Tribune poll from late 2025 showed Walz’s approval rating under 40%. The same polling found most respondents believed his administration carried a major share of responsibility for what happened.

A Leadership Style Under the Microscope

Critics say Walz’s response fits a pattern. During major events in his time as governor, including unrest in Minneapolis in 2020 and the state’s post-pandemic economic struggles, he has often pointed to forces outside state control.

In the Feeding Our Future case, leaked internal memos suggested early concerns were not treated with urgency. One email from 2021 warned that the state was approving too much too fast and claimed there was pressure to show quick results.

Some experts link that approach to an emphasis on expanding public programs without equal focus on guardrails. University of Minnesota political scientist Dr. Elena Ramirez said the scandal highlights what can happen when one party controls state government for long stretches. She said refusing to own the failures adds to public anger and could cost Democrats at the ballot box.

The financial damage is severe. Minnesota taxpayers face billions in losses, and recovery efforts have brought back only a small share through seizures and related actions. Families who depended on legitimate meal support have reported delays and cutbacks, adding to frustration. Maria Gonzalez, a single mother in St. Paul, said the disruption hit families who needed help most while fraudsters took advantage of the system.

A New Opening for Republicans in Minnesota

Minnesota has not voted Republican for president since 1972, but the scandal has fueled fresh talk of political change. Republicans have hammered themes of corruption and weak oversight. GOP gubernatorial hopeful Scott Jensen, a former state senator, said long-term one-party control helped create conditions for waste and abuse. He promised stronger oversight and a reset in state leadership.

Other forces are adding to the shift. Rural voters, already wary of policies they see as centered on the Twin Cities, have reacted strongly to reports that large amounts of money flowed through metro-area nonprofits.

Suburban independents, who helped Walz in 2022, appear to be moving away from Democrats based on recent surveys. A December 2025 Emerson College poll showed Republicans up by 5 points on a generic ballot test, a change from the last decade’s trend.

The scandal could also shape legislative races. Some Democratic incumbents face challenges from candidates running on internal reform, while Republicans look for contenders who can campaign on ethics and oversight. A Republican win in 2026 would not just change Minnesota politics. It could also hint at a wider shift in the Midwest ahead of the 2028 presidential cycle.

Walz’s record includes major progressive wins, including paid family leave and marijuana legalization, but the Feeding Our Future case now hangs over his time in office. As he stepped back from the race, he called for unity and said Minnesota could move forward. Many residents want something more basic first, clear accountability, and better controls.

Federal trials in the months ahead may reveal more about how the fraud worked and who else was involved. For now, Minnesota politics sits in a tense moment, with voters watching closely and both parties preparing for a race shaped by trust, oversight, and the cost of failure.

Related News:

Tim Walz Ends Re-Election Bid Amid Escalating Fraud Scandal

New Voter ID Laws 2026: How Will They Affect the 2026 Midterms

WASHINGTON D.C. –  Lawmakers are back on Capitol Hill after the holiday break, and another government shutdown is back in the spotlight. The next big deadline is January 30. By then, Congress must pass funding for most federal agencies through the rest of fiscal year 2026. Talks are active, but no final deal is in place. That leaves Washington watching for a bipartisan agreement, or another round of gridlock that could create a Government Shutdown of non-essential services.

Today’s patchwork budget traces to a tough deal that reopened the government after a 43-day shutdown that started October 1, 2025. That standoff, driven in large part by fights over expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies, hit the economy hard and sent hundreds of thousands of federal workers home on furlough. The Government Shutdown ended with a continuing resolution (CR) and some full-year funding, but much of the work was left for later.

Three of the 12 yearly appropriations bills became law under the November agreement. They fund Agriculture, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and the Legislative Branch through September 30, 2026, the end of the fiscal year.

The other nine bills cover major parts of the government, including Defense, Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, Transportation-Housing and Urban Development, and more. Those programs are running on a short-term CR that ends January 30, 2026.

If Congress doesn’t act, funding would expire and trigger a partial shutdown. Agencies such as the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, and Justice could see major disruption. For more details on the enacted bills, see the House Appropriations Committee’s announcement.

Roots of the Budget Battle

The fight isn’t only about timing. It reflects deeper disagreements over spending levels and priorities. Republicans control both chambers and the White House under President Donald Trump. They’ve pushed for tighter spending and cuts to non-defense discretionary programs. In the House, appropriators moved bills tied to lower overall numbers. In the Senate, leaders leaned toward bipartisan bills with higher totals.

During the fall shutdown, one major clash came from Democrats pushing to extend enhanced Obamacare subsidies. Those subsidies expired at the end of 2025, and millions faced higher premiums. Republicans wouldn’t add the extensions to the CR. Democrats responded with holds that helped stretch the standoff.

Now that the subsidies have ended and health costs are climbing, Democrats are signaling less of a hard line. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said January 4 that a shutdown doesn’t look likely right now, pointing to progress on appropriations. “The good news is our Republican appropriators are working with us, and we’re making good progress,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Signs of Optimism Amid Caution Over Government Shutdown

Compared with last fall, the tone is calmer in early 2026. Both parties, and the White House, appear eager to avoid a repeat. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called a shutdown “toxic for both parties.” A White House official also confirmed the administration is in talks with lawmakers to prevent one.

On January 5, top appropriators released three bipartisan spending bills, hoping to move them before the deadline. Industry groups are also pushing Congress to act. Many are still dealing with the last shutdown’s damage to supply chains and programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research initiative. Politico reported on January 3 that neither Trump nor Democrats want a rerun

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who is retiring, said he felt confident after talks with the White House. He pointed to the administration’s push for “regular order” appropriations.

Potential Impacts if No Deal is Reached

If a shutdown starts January 31, it wouldn’t stop everything. Essential services would continue, including Social Security payments, military operations, and air traffic control. Still, the fallout could be broad.

• Federal employees: Hundreds of thousands could be furloughed or required to work without pay. Back pay usually comes only after the shutdown ends.
• National parks and museums: Closures are likely, based on past shutdowns.
• Regulatory delays: Work such as FDA inspections, EPA permits, and loan processing (including SBA and FHA) could pause.
• Economic ripple: Economists estimated the fall shutdown cut Q4 2025 growth by about 1.5%. Another shutdown could add to inflation worries or slow a recovery.
• Programs serving families: Delays tied to SNAP, WIC, or flood insurance extensions could affect millions.

Paths Forward: Full-Year Bills or Another CR?

Time is tight. Congress has only about eight days in joint session before January 30. Lawmakers have a few routes they can take:

1. Pass the remaining bills one by one, or bundle several into “minibus” packages.
2. Pass another short-term CR to buy more time, even though many members say they want to stop relying on temporary funding.
3. Use a full-year CR for the unfinished bills, which would likely keep spending flat at current levels.

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole has described a plan to conference simpler bills first, such as Energy-Water and Interior, then turn to harder fights like Defense.

Some experts say the smaller to-do list helps. With only nine bills left, there’s less room for the kind of blowup that caused the October shutdown. For congressional status tracking.

Political Stakes in a Midterm Year

The 2026 midterms raise the stakes. Neither party wants to take the blame for a shutdown. Democrats plan to focus on higher health costs and possible GOP cuts. Republicans want to highlight fiscal discipline and border security.

President Trump, tied to two of the longest Government shutdowns in modern history, hasn’t said much publicly about the new deadline. Behind the scenes, he has urged progress, according to reports.

Nonpartisan budget watchers, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, continue tracking the numbers. They note there are no enforceable caps after the Fiscal Responsibility Act, though many budgets still assume about 1% growth.

Most observers expect Congress to avoid a shutdown, possibly through a late deal. Shutdowns tend to poll poorly. Still, with unresolved health-related extenders and disagreements over top-line spending, the risk hasn’t gone away.

One Senate aide summed up the mood this way: “Everyone’s burned from October. No one wants that again.”

Over the next few weeks, Congress must close the gaps or face real consequences. Federal workers, contractors, and families who depend on public services want a clear outcome soon. As of January 6, negotiations continue. There’s cautious optimism in Washington, but the January 30 deadline is getting closer to a Government Shutdown.

Related News:

The GOP Needs More Fiscal Responsibility in Government Spending