update - blind detainee dropped off randomly by ICE freezes to death trying to find his way home
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Grand jury shuts down Trump's latest revenge prosecution in 'remarkable rebuke': NYT
© provided by AlterNet
The New York Times reports a Washington D.C. grand jury has again refused to acquiesce to President Donald Trump’s quest to prosecute his political foes, with the paper calling the rejection “a remarkable rebuke” from ordinary citizens.
The Times reports: “Federal prosecutors in Washington sought and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video last fall that enraged President Trump by reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, four people familiar with the matter said.”
The Times additionally reports it was already remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro — even authorized prosecutors to approach a grand jury with an indictment of the six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or the nation’s spy agencies.
It is rare for grand jurors to snub prosecutors’ indictment requests, considering prosecutors get to dominate the jury with one-sided arguments leading up to their decision. However, the Times reports it has happened with increased frequency with Trump’s Justice Department “as his appointees push ahead with questionable cases.”
It is doubly surprising considering the president of the United States accused Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and the other legislators of seditious conspiracy and said they could potentially be put to death. The U.S. Department of Defense later announced that it was launching an investigation into Kelly for participating in the video warning active-duty troops to not follow illegal orders from Trump and also threatened to court martial the NASA astronaut.
But the jury apparently disagreed on all counts and refused to indict any of the legislators incriminated by Trump.
Trump’s targets also Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and four colleagues in the House: Jason Crow (D-Colo.) Maggie Goodlander, (D-N.H.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa).
Kelly is already suing the Pentagon over its attempts to punish him.
© provided by AlterNet
The New York Times reports a Washington D.C. grand jury has again refused to acquiesce to President Donald Trump’s quest to prosecute his political foes, with the paper calling the rejection “a remarkable rebuke” from ordinary citizens.
The Times reports: “Federal prosecutors in Washington sought and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video last fall that enraged President Trump by reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, four people familiar with the matter said.”
The Times additionally reports it was already remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro — even authorized prosecutors to approach a grand jury with an indictment of the six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or the nation’s spy agencies.
It is rare for grand jurors to snub prosecutors’ indictment requests, considering prosecutors get to dominate the jury with one-sided arguments leading up to their decision. However, the Times reports it has happened with increased frequency with Trump’s Justice Department “as his appointees push ahead with questionable cases.”
It is doubly surprising considering the president of the United States accused Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and the other legislators of seditious conspiracy and said they could potentially be put to death. The U.S. Department of Defense later announced that it was launching an investigation into Kelly for participating in the video warning active-duty troops to not follow illegal orders from Trump and also threatened to court martial the NASA astronaut.
But the jury apparently disagreed on all counts and refused to indict any of the legislators incriminated by Trump.
Trump’s targets also Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and four colleagues in the House: Jason Crow (D-Colo.) Maggie Goodlander, (D-N.H.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa).
Kelly is already suing the Pentagon over its attempts to punish him.
Note Pirro was the only USA on the document. She's a ultra maga hack. It's rare for the top person only. It means the line prosecutors wanted no part of this persecution err, uh, prosecution. Also note I believe Slotkin as well was on this, ie, she was named and the grand jury refused to indict her as well.
They really need to sue Bondi et al for billions.
The motto of the US DOJ was "without fear or favor" -it is now "with fear and favor".
They really need to sue Bondi et al for billions.
The motto of the US DOJ was "without fear or favor" -it is now "with fear and favor".
This whole episode shows how inept and dangerous Trump's DOJ is. Inept because they tried to indict sitting politicians for something that isn't illegal. Dangerous because if they are this fucking stupid, I doubt they could successfully prosecute anyone with serious charges. I mean, what does it say about them that they couldn't even get a grand jury to agree with them. Who's to say this couldn't happen when they try to prosecute all the alleged Epstein partners....oh, wait....
US House poised to vote against Trump's tariffs on Canada
The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote Wednesday on a resolution against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods, and there's evidence that enough Republicans have grown tired of the trade war that the vote could pass.
The resolution from Rep. Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York, seeks to terminate the national emergency that Trump invoked in February 2025 to empower his tariffs on a range of imports from Canada.
Trump's emergency declaration — that Canada's "failure" to address cross-border drug trafficking created an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security — underpins the 35 per cent tariffs currently imposed on a range of Canadian goods that don't qualify for exemption under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).
Congress has the authority to review presidential declarations of emergencies.
Lawmakers began debating the resolution Wednesday afternoon. Meeks kicked it off by accusing Trump of declaring an emergency when none exists.
"Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally," Meeks said from the House floor. "The only emergency here is the economic one created by Donald J. Trump's tariffs."
He called the tariffs unnecessary and harmful taxes on the American people.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida criticized the Democrats for putting forward a resolution that he says ignores the reality of the fentanyl crisis and Canada's role in it.
"Apparently they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges they have a drug trafficking crisis, but they weren't doing anything to fix it," Mast said.
Related video: Trump escalates tensions with Canada, threatens Gordie Howe Bridge opening (Espresso)
View on Watch
A vote on the resolution could come as early as 5:30 pm ET.
Even if the resolution succeeds in the House, and makes its way through the Senate for approval, Trump retains veto power. However, losing a tariff vote in the House would be a politically symbolic blow to the president, who has made tariffs the cornerstone economic policy of his second term.
Although the resolution has been in the works since March of last year, Wednesday will be the first time the House will have the opportunity to vote on it, as it was repeatedly blocked by Republican leadership.
The blocking effort finally collapsed on Tuesday.
Three Republicans sided with all Democratic representatives in the narrowly divided House to vote down the rule 217-214, clearing the way for Wednesday's vote on the tariffs against Canada.
Tariffs a 'significant tax,' says Nebraska Republican
"Congress needs to be able to debate on tariffs," said Nebraska's Don Bacon, one of the Republicans who rebelled against the party leadership, in a social media post.
"Tariffs have been a 'net negative' for the economy and are a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying."
Similar Democrat-led efforts to pass an anti-tariff resolution succeeded in the Senate last year, when a handful of Republican senators defied Trump with their votes. But the Republican leadership in the House shelved it.
All the tariffs Trump has imposed on the basis of national emergencies hang in the balance of a looming Supreme Court decision. The nation's top court heard the case in early November, and a decision could come as early as Feb. 20, the next date that the justices have set aside to release their rulings.
The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote Wednesday on a resolution against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods, and there's evidence that enough Republicans have grown tired of the trade war that the vote could pass.
The resolution from Rep. Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York, seeks to terminate the national emergency that Trump invoked in February 2025 to empower his tariffs on a range of imports from Canada.
Trump's emergency declaration — that Canada's "failure" to address cross-border drug trafficking created an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security — underpins the 35 per cent tariffs currently imposed on a range of Canadian goods that don't qualify for exemption under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).
Congress has the authority to review presidential declarations of emergencies.
Lawmakers began debating the resolution Wednesday afternoon. Meeks kicked it off by accusing Trump of declaring an emergency when none exists.
"Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally," Meeks said from the House floor. "The only emergency here is the economic one created by Donald J. Trump's tariffs."
He called the tariffs unnecessary and harmful taxes on the American people.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida criticized the Democrats for putting forward a resolution that he says ignores the reality of the fentanyl crisis and Canada's role in it.
"Apparently they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges they have a drug trafficking crisis, but they weren't doing anything to fix it," Mast said.
Related video: Trump escalates tensions with Canada, threatens Gordie Howe Bridge opening (Espresso)View on Watch
A vote on the resolution could come as early as 5:30 pm ET.
Even if the resolution succeeds in the House, and makes its way through the Senate for approval, Trump retains veto power. However, losing a tariff vote in the House would be a politically symbolic blow to the president, who has made tariffs the cornerstone economic policy of his second term.
Although the resolution has been in the works since March of last year, Wednesday will be the first time the House will have the opportunity to vote on it, as it was repeatedly blocked by Republican leadership.
The blocking effort finally collapsed on Tuesday.
Three Republicans sided with all Democratic representatives in the narrowly divided House to vote down the rule 217-214, clearing the way for Wednesday's vote on the tariffs against Canada.
Tariffs a 'significant tax,' says Nebraska Republican
"Congress needs to be able to debate on tariffs," said Nebraska's Don Bacon, one of the Republicans who rebelled against the party leadership, in a social media post.
"Tariffs have been a 'net negative' for the economy and are a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying."
Similar Democrat-led efforts to pass an anti-tariff resolution succeeded in the Senate last year, when a handful of Republican senators defied Trump with their votes. But the Republican leadership in the House shelved it.
All the tariffs Trump has imposed on the basis of national emergencies hang in the balance of a looming Supreme Court decision. The nation's top court heard the case in early November, and a decision could come as early as Feb. 20, the next date that the justices have set aside to release their rulings.
Trump quietly pulls National Guard from US cities after court losses
Donald Trump’s administration has quietly withdrawn federalized National Guard troops from Democratic cities after a series of court rulings struck down the president’s plans.
The withdrawal quietly concluded last month, with no public acknowledgment from the White House or Department of Defense despite the administration’s insistence that U.S. military assets needed to be deployed on American streets to curb violent crime and support immigration enforcement.
The end of those deployments, first reported by The Washington Post, is mentioned only by the U.S. Northern Command, stating that troops sent to Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles have “completed demobilizing activities.”
That includes the withdrawal of more than 5,000 troops from California, roughly 500 troops in Chicago and another 200 in Oregon at the president’s direction. They were sent home by January 21, according to the Pentagon.
Those deployments cost nearly half a billion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
A month before those deployments ended, Trump announced on his Truth Social account that the administration would be removing service members “despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact.”
“Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in,” he wrote. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time!”
White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson downplayed the news that the administration had withdrawn those troops, as of last month, saying that The Washington Post was covering an “announcement the President made HIMSELF over a month ago,” followed by three clown emojis.
Last year, the president began ordering National Guard troops to several Democratic-led cities, an effort that one federal judge rebuked as Trump’s attempt to create “a national police force with the president as its chief.”
Legal challenges from state and local officials accused the administration of using American streets for political theater, and in December, the Supreme Court blocked the administration from sending the military into Chicago. Trump later announced the withdrawal of service members from other cities.
The Supreme Court, weighing in on the legal battle over boots on the ground in Illinois, appeared to reject the administration’s argument that protests against the president’s anti-immigration agenda are so volatile that only the National Guard, under Trump’s orders, can stop them.
“For the first time, crickets from Donald Trump,” wrote Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. “After losing in court multiple times to Illinois and other states, the National Guard was finally quietly pulled out of our streets. The pressure is working, and we’ve got to keep at it.”
More than 2,500 National Guard members are still in Washington, D.C., but under a separate arrangement for a mission that is expected to end this year.
National Guard members were initially deployed to the nation’s capital to help fight crime. But have often spent time picking up trash while others patrolled the National Mall and train stations.
In November, two West Virginia National Guard service members were shot near the White House.
Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe remains in inpatient rehabilitation after he sustained a gunshot to the head. His colleague, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, died one day after the attack.
National Guard service members were deployed to patrol Washington, DC, and ended up picking up trash. That deployment is expected to end later this year (Getty Images)
There are also troops in Memphis and New Orleans through an agreement with the Trump administration but under the direction of their respective state’s governors.
Last year, Trump had federalized the normally state-authorized National Guards, going above the command and objections of Democratic governors.
Democratic officials and civil rights groups feared the president was testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets for politically charged missions, and violating service members’ commitments to stay out of domestic politics in the process.
Trump deployed troops to Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles under Title 10, which allowed the president to exert authority over a state’s National Guard. But the military cannot perform law enforcement activities, like making arrests or performing searches.
In January, the Pentagon ordered roughly 1,500 active-duty troops to prepare for deployment to Minneapolis in response to protests against the administration’s surge of immigration officers and violent raids
That deployment never happened, and the administration pulled out Border Patrol’s “commander-at-large” Greg Bovino and roughly 700 federal officers after the fatal shootings of demonstrators Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
Donald Trump’s administration has quietly withdrawn federalized National Guard troops from Democratic cities after a series of court rulings struck down the president’s plans.
The withdrawal quietly concluded last month, with no public acknowledgment from the White House or Department of Defense despite the administration’s insistence that U.S. military assets needed to be deployed on American streets to curb violent crime and support immigration enforcement.
The end of those deployments, first reported by The Washington Post, is mentioned only by the U.S. Northern Command, stating that troops sent to Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles have “completed demobilizing activities.”
That includes the withdrawal of more than 5,000 troops from California, roughly 500 troops in Chicago and another 200 in Oregon at the president’s direction. They were sent home by January 21, according to the Pentagon.
Those deployments cost nearly half a billion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
A month before those deployments ended, Trump announced on his Truth Social account that the administration would be removing service members “despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact.”
“Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in,” he wrote. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time!”
White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson downplayed the news that the administration had withdrawn those troops, as of last month, saying that The Washington Post was covering an “announcement the President made HIMSELF over a month ago,” followed by three clown emojis.
Last year, the president began ordering National Guard troops to several Democratic-led cities, an effort that one federal judge rebuked as Trump’s attempt to create “a national police force with the president as its chief.”
Legal challenges from state and local officials accused the administration of using American streets for political theater, and in December, the Supreme Court blocked the administration from sending the military into Chicago. Trump later announced the withdrawal of service members from other cities.
The Supreme Court, weighing in on the legal battle over boots on the ground in Illinois, appeared to reject the administration’s argument that protests against the president’s anti-immigration agenda are so volatile that only the National Guard, under Trump’s orders, can stop them.
“For the first time, crickets from Donald Trump,” wrote Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. “After losing in court multiple times to Illinois and other states, the National Guard was finally quietly pulled out of our streets. The pressure is working, and we’ve got to keep at it.”
More than 2,500 National Guard members are still in Washington, D.C., but under a separate arrangement for a mission that is expected to end this year.
National Guard members were initially deployed to the nation’s capital to help fight crime. But have often spent time picking up trash while others patrolled the National Mall and train stations.
In November, two West Virginia National Guard service members were shot near the White House.
Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe remains in inpatient rehabilitation after he sustained a gunshot to the head. His colleague, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, died one day after the attack.
National Guard service members were deployed to patrol Washington, DC, and ended up picking up trash. That deployment is expected to end later this year (Getty Images)
There are also troops in Memphis and New Orleans through an agreement with the Trump administration but under the direction of their respective state’s governors.
Last year, Trump had federalized the normally state-authorized National Guards, going above the command and objections of Democratic governors.
Democratic officials and civil rights groups feared the president was testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets for politically charged missions, and violating service members’ commitments to stay out of domestic politics in the process.
Trump deployed troops to Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles under Title 10, which allowed the president to exert authority over a state’s National Guard. But the military cannot perform law enforcement activities, like making arrests or performing searches.
In January, the Pentagon ordered roughly 1,500 active-duty troops to prepare for deployment to Minneapolis in response to protests against the administration’s surge of immigration officers and violent raids
That deployment never happened, and the administration pulled out Border Patrol’s “commander-at-large” Greg Bovino and roughly 700 federal officers after the fatal shootings of demonstrators Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
Trump’s stranglehold on Cuba is growing. Its collapse could affect the world
donald Trump was able to claim a victory of sorts this week when the Cuban government announced that the country would soon run out of aviation fuel as a result of US sanctions.
The President’s crackdown on oil imports to the island marked the latest development in the decades-long hostility between Cuba and the US, but one that seems to be having a profound and growing impact.
On Monday, Air Canada became the first airline to cancel flights to Cuba, citing concerns over access to aviation fuel. It said that projections showed that “as of February 10 aviation fuel will not be commercially available at the island’s airports”.
Since the US raid on Venezuela last month that captured president Nicolás Maduro, fuel exports to Cuba have been almost completely blocked. Venezuela had been the country’s main source of foreign oil.
Other airlines have said they will add an extra stop to their journeys to refuel elsewhere in the Caribbean.
Tourism is one of Cuba’s main sources of revenue, bringing in billions of dollars. A reduction in flights will cause significant damage to the local economy.
The fuel shortage is taking its toll throughout the country. President Miguel Díaz-Canel announced stringent energy-saving restrictions on Friday. He said that nurses would be moved to hospitals nearer their homes, state companies would shift to a four‑day week, and transport between provinces would be reduced.
The education sector will also be affected, with shorter school days for children and fewer in-person requirements for university students.
But even with these measures, experts predict Cuba could run out of fuel as early as March. Last Thursday, the United Nations warned of a potential humanitarian “collapse” there as a direct result of the blockade.
Cuba could run out of fuel next month (Photo: Adalberto Roque/AFP)
Pedro Mendes Loureiro, director at the Centre of Latin American Studies at the University of Cambridge, said the world can expect “a spiralling crisis of economic, social and humanitarian dimensions” in Cuba.
Eduardo Gamarra, a professor of politics and international relations at Florida University’s Cuban Research Institute, told The i Paper that the country was heading for a “major Haiti-like humanitarian disaster”.
Some aid – mostly provided by Cuba’s ally China – is still entering the country, but it could be cut off if more hardline US politicians have their way.
Countries have been threatened with tariffs if they trade with Cuba. Its second-largest oil supplier, Mexico, is in the middle of renegotiating its trade agreements with the US and Canada and is unlikely to want to push boundaries with the Trump administration.
The White House has said its tariff policies are a direct response to Cuba’s “support of hostile actors, terrorism, and regional instability”.
Some experts argue the current crisis represents the most significant opportunity for regime change in the communist republic for over six decades.
Protesters demonstrate against the United States’ intervention in Venezuela in London last month (Photo: Carl Court/Getty)
Gamarra said the stated US motivations towards Cuba echo those used to justify the raid on Venezuela last month, which affected regime change, but he said that “one key driver in the way the President thinks is revenge. That is a fundamental driving force in the way he runs the country”.
Trump will also likely want to show he acted decisively in an area that his predecessors failed to solve, but it could create major issues.
“The situation in Cuba is structurally very, very weak and it would take years to recover,” Gamarra said, adding that regime change would require significant economic investment over many years, money the US is unlikely to provide.
Venezuela’s economy has continued to suffer since Maduro’s capture and the US-enforced change in leadership. In the immediate aftermath, Trump told reporters the US would run Venezuela and that the task would fall to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who The Washington Post dubbed the “viceroy of Venezuela”.
“The US is essentially governing Venezuela,” said Gamarra.
Others are more sceptical about the dangers to the Cuban regime.
Simon Calder, who wrote the first independent travel guide to Cuba, said: “History shows that Cuba is better than any other nation at coping with extraordinary economic shocks – as was demonstrated during the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR.”
Sanctions may succeed in “shutting down the tourist industry”, he said, but “Cuba can just about survive on all the hard currency being sent back from the million-plus working-age citizens who have left the island for better prospects”.
Even so, Calder said that Trump has “gone further than any previous American president”.
Gamarra said that Cuba still has access to funds, the challenge is buying the goods it needs. “I’ve heard reports that they could have up to $18bn (£13bn) in reserves… These funds could be used to reinvest in Cuba and stabilise the country, they could be looted and spent abroad, or they could fund repression,” he said.
Cuba produces just 40 per cent of the oil it needs, meaning without a steady supply from abroad, industries and much else on the island could grind to a halt.
Trump may hope for this and that it brings Cubans out on to the streets, in the same way that recent mass protests in Iran began as demonstrations over economic issues.
Díaz-Canel, who has been president since 2018, shows few signs of stepping down.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, said this week: “I think that the fact that the Cuban government is on its last leg and its country is about to collapse, they should be wise in their statements directed toward the President of the United States.”
It is unclear what statements she was referring to.
Leavitt added: “The President is always willing to engage in diplomacy, and I believe that is taking place, in fact, with the Cuban government.”
Looking ahead, Gamarra sees two options for Cuba: an “incredible humanitarian crisis” underscored by government repression, or negotiation with Trump.
“Cuba is so weak now that their best option is to negotiate co-governance” with the US, he said. “A peaceful transition is better than an invasion.”
donald Trump was able to claim a victory of sorts this week when the Cuban government announced that the country would soon run out of aviation fuel as a result of US sanctions.
The President’s crackdown on oil imports to the island marked the latest development in the decades-long hostility between Cuba and the US, but one that seems to be having a profound and growing impact.
On Monday, Air Canada became the first airline to cancel flights to Cuba, citing concerns over access to aviation fuel. It said that projections showed that “as of February 10 aviation fuel will not be commercially available at the island’s airports”.
Since the US raid on Venezuela last month that captured president Nicolás Maduro, fuel exports to Cuba have been almost completely blocked. Venezuela had been the country’s main source of foreign oil.
Other airlines have said they will add an extra stop to their journeys to refuel elsewhere in the Caribbean.
Tourism is one of Cuba’s main sources of revenue, bringing in billions of dollars. A reduction in flights will cause significant damage to the local economy.
The fuel shortage is taking its toll throughout the country. President Miguel Díaz-Canel announced stringent energy-saving restrictions on Friday. He said that nurses would be moved to hospitals nearer their homes, state companies would shift to a four‑day week, and transport between provinces would be reduced.
The education sector will also be affected, with shorter school days for children and fewer in-person requirements for university students.
But even with these measures, experts predict Cuba could run out of fuel as early as March. Last Thursday, the United Nations warned of a potential humanitarian “collapse” there as a direct result of the blockade.
Cuba could run out of fuel next month (Photo: Adalberto Roque/AFP)
Pedro Mendes Loureiro, director at the Centre of Latin American Studies at the University of Cambridge, said the world can expect “a spiralling crisis of economic, social and humanitarian dimensions” in Cuba.
Eduardo Gamarra, a professor of politics and international relations at Florida University’s Cuban Research Institute, told The i Paper that the country was heading for a “major Haiti-like humanitarian disaster”.
Some aid – mostly provided by Cuba’s ally China – is still entering the country, but it could be cut off if more hardline US politicians have their way.
Countries have been threatened with tariffs if they trade with Cuba. Its second-largest oil supplier, Mexico, is in the middle of renegotiating its trade agreements with the US and Canada and is unlikely to want to push boundaries with the Trump administration.
The White House has said its tariff policies are a direct response to Cuba’s “support of hostile actors, terrorism, and regional instability”.
Some experts argue the current crisis represents the most significant opportunity for regime change in the communist republic for over six decades.
Protesters demonstrate against the United States’ intervention in Venezuela in London last month (Photo: Carl Court/Getty)
Gamarra said the stated US motivations towards Cuba echo those used to justify the raid on Venezuela last month, which affected regime change, but he said that “one key driver in the way the President thinks is revenge. That is a fundamental driving force in the way he runs the country”.
Trump will also likely want to show he acted decisively in an area that his predecessors failed to solve, but it could create major issues.
“The situation in Cuba is structurally very, very weak and it would take years to recover,” Gamarra said, adding that regime change would require significant economic investment over many years, money the US is unlikely to provide.
Venezuela’s economy has continued to suffer since Maduro’s capture and the US-enforced change in leadership. In the immediate aftermath, Trump told reporters the US would run Venezuela and that the task would fall to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who The Washington Post dubbed the “viceroy of Venezuela”.
“The US is essentially governing Venezuela,” said Gamarra.
Others are more sceptical about the dangers to the Cuban regime.
Simon Calder, who wrote the first independent travel guide to Cuba, said: “History shows that Cuba is better than any other nation at coping with extraordinary economic shocks – as was demonstrated during the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR.”
Sanctions may succeed in “shutting down the tourist industry”, he said, but “Cuba can just about survive on all the hard currency being sent back from the million-plus working-age citizens who have left the island for better prospects”.
Even so, Calder said that Trump has “gone further than any previous American president”.
Gamarra said that Cuba still has access to funds, the challenge is buying the goods it needs. “I’ve heard reports that they could have up to $18bn (£13bn) in reserves… These funds could be used to reinvest in Cuba and stabilise the country, they could be looted and spent abroad, or they could fund repression,” he said.
Cuba produces just 40 per cent of the oil it needs, meaning without a steady supply from abroad, industries and much else on the island could grind to a halt.
Trump may hope for this and that it brings Cubans out on to the streets, in the same way that recent mass protests in Iran began as demonstrations over economic issues.
Díaz-Canel, who has been president since 2018, shows few signs of stepping down.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, said this week: “I think that the fact that the Cuban government is on its last leg and its country is about to collapse, they should be wise in their statements directed toward the President of the United States.”
It is unclear what statements she was referring to.
Leavitt added: “The President is always willing to engage in diplomacy, and I believe that is taking place, in fact, with the Cuban government.”
Looking ahead, Gamarra sees two options for Cuba: an “incredible humanitarian crisis” underscored by government repression, or negotiation with Trump.
“Cuba is so weak now that their best option is to negotiate co-governance” with the US, he said. “A peaceful transition is better than an invasion.”
In a vote that GOP leaders fought hard to avoid, a half dozen Republicans sent a blunt message to President Donald Trump that they do not support the tariff regime that he has made the centerpiece of his second term.
Six Republicans joined with Democrats in a vote to effectively repeal the president’s tariffs on Canada, the culmination of months of consternation in the GOP over the president’s trade war that has quietly rattled even some of his staunchest loyalists in Congress.
And it won’t be the last tough tariffs vote for Trump: Democrats have successfully unlocked a procedural power to force more votes, including on the president’s tariffs on Mexico and his so-called “liberation day” tariffs in the coming weeks.
It’s a rare instance of GOP defections at a time when Trump still maintains a strong grip over the party — even with Congress’ narrow margins. But in recent days, Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump’s legislative team failed to convince enough in their party to block the Democratic-led vote.
“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!” Trump wrote in part in a Truth Social post around the time of the vote.
The Senate has already passed a similar measure to cancel Trump’s tariffs on Canada, which — unlike most measures — can be passed with a simple majority rather than 60 votes.
But even if the Senate does agree to this same House measure, Trump would still have the power to veto it. The House did not secure enough votes — which requires two-thirds of the chamber — to protect a veto override.
For some Republicans, the vote was not only a chance to push back on Trump’s tariffs, but to reassert some of Congress’ authority that has been diminished in recent months.
Rep. Don Bacon, an outspoken Nebraskan who is retiring this term, told CNN that he’s a free-trade Republican who opposes this kind of intervention. But he also believes it’s Congress’ duty to make the call on tariffs, not the White House.
“He needs to know that we’re not a rubberstamp,” Bacon said of his reasons for supporting the measure. And he said he’s spoken with many Republicans who agree but have been reticent to speak out.
“From my vantage point, people feel like they’re in between a rock or a hard place because they don’t want to get on the bad side of the president,” Bacon said.
