U.S. forces seized a fifth sanctioned oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea. This underscores the Trump administration’s effort to tighten control over Venezuelan oil shipments.

As per the reports from AP News, the tanker, the Olina, was intercepted as part of a broader strategy aimed at restricting Venezuela’s oil production, refining, and global distribution. The administration has treated enforcement as a central pillar of its policy, and the operation reflected that priority.

The pre-dawn seizure involved Marines and Navy sailors operating from a U.S. aircraft carrier deployed in the region. After the vessel was secured, the Coast Guard assumed control as officials reiterated that sanctioned oil shipments would not be allowed to move freely.

The operation left little doubt about the administration’s intentions

U.S. Southern Command oversaw the operation and said there is “no safe haven for criminals” when announcing the seizure. Unclassified footage released Friday showed a U.S. helicopter landing on the tanker, with personnel searching the deck and breaching an interior door.

US forces boarded the fifth tanker in their operation to enforce the blockade of Venezuela. It is the „Olina“. She got captured in the Caribbean Sea. pic.twitter.com/xEdheH7pxv

— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) January 9, 2026

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described the Olina as part of a “ghost fleet” suspected of transporting embargoed oil while attempting to evade U.S. forces. The interception follows earlier efforts to stop similar shipments, including a recent attempt to intercept a vessel with Venezuelan links as it fled across the Atlantic.

Tracking data indicates that Olina last transmitted its location in November while north of the Venezuelan coast and had since been operating with its beacon turned off. Shipping records show the vessel was previously sanctioned under the name Minerva M for transporting Russian oil and was listed as falsely flagged, despite claims it was registered in Timor-Leste.

Experts estimate the tanker was carrying roughly 707,000 barrels of oil, worth more than $42 million at current prices. Administration officials have framed seizures like this as both enforcement actions and financial leverage, a position that has already contributed to rising U.S.-Russia tensions following earlier tanker seizures.

President Donald Trump said the seizure was conducted in coordination with Venezuela’s interim authorities and is part of a larger reconstruction plan. The administration expects to sell tens of millions of barrels of sanctioned Venezuelan oil, with proceeds intended to benefit both the U.S. and the Venezuelan people.

The president also met with executives from 17 oil companies to discuss investing $100 billion to restore Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, a plan officials say is intended to be long-term. Vice President JD Vance said the strategy allows the U.S. to control where Venezuelan oil can be sold, reinforcing the warning that sanctioned shipments will not make it out of the Caribbean.

As UNILAD reported, Vice President JD Vance delivered a pointed warning to European leaders over Greenland, suggesting the United States may act if security concerns are not addressed. The comments were made during a White House briefing.

Vance said European governments should take President Donald Trump’s long-standing interest in Greenland seriously, dismissing claims that the administration’s position has been overstated. His remarks align with broader signals from the White House that traditional diplomatic norms are no longer being treated as fixed, a shift previously highlighted in reporting on how the president has ripped up decades of foreign policy toward China and Taiwan.

The vice president emphasized that the administration expects Europe to increase its focus on the autonomous Danish territory. Further warning that inaction could force the United States to step in.

The warning was direct and left little room for interpretation

Vance said Greenland is strategically critical, describing it as essential to both the US and global missile defense. He added that hostile foreign actors have shown growing interest in the region, increasing the need for heightened security.

Journalist: Do you have a message for European leaders regarding Greenland?

JD Vance: My advice to European leaders is to take Trump seriously. pic.twitter.com/BGTMG6n7VL

— Vegas (@vegasyx) January 8, 2026

He then warned that if European leaders fail to take responsibility for Greenland’s defense, the United States may intervene. Vance did not specify what form that intervention could take, saying any decision would ultimately rest with the president as diplomatic engagement continues.

Greenland’s leadership has pushed back strongly against the rhetoric. Premier Jens Frederik Nielsen said threats or talk of annexation are unacceptable between allies and do not reflect how Greenland expects to be treated.

Public opposition within Greenland has also been clear, with residents reiterating that the territory is not something that can be bought or traded. The comments have reinforced longstanding concerns over sovereignty and self-determination.

The United States has expressed interest in Greenland before. During World War II, US forces occupied the territory after Germany took control of Denmark, and the US later offered to purchase Greenland in 1947.

President Trump has repeatedly raised the idea of acquiring Greenland in recent years, describing it as a strategic priority. Reports have indicated the administration has paired diplomatic discussions with firm pressure.

President Trump has suggested the possibility of US military action inside Mexico to combat drug trafficking. The remarks mark a significant escalation in the administration’s approach to border security and have prompted criticism from international observers and officials in Mexico.

As UNILAD has reported, Trump outlined his reasoning during a recent interview, arguing that drug cartels have effectively taken control of large parts of Mexico. He described the situation as “very sad to watch and see,” while claiming the US has already made major progress shutting down maritime drug routes.

The president framed potential military action as a continuation of existing enforcement efforts rather than a new policy direction. These comments come as the administration has increasingly distanced itself from international institutions and cooperative agreements, part of a broader shift away from multilateral engagement that has already sparked backlash.

The threat follows a broader pattern of aggressive rhetoric

Trump claimed the US has largely eliminated drug smuggling by sea and said the focus would now shift to land-based operations. “We knocked out 97% of the drugs coming in by water, and we are going to start now hitting land with regard to the cartels,” he said, adding again that “the cartels are running Mexico.”

While Trump acknowledged that any amount of drug trafficking is unacceptable, he suggested military intervention as the necessary response. The prospect of US forces operating inside Mexico has raised concerns due to the implications for sovereignty and international law.

BREAKING: Trump implies that he’s going to start bombing Mexico.

“We are gonna start hitting LAND with regard to the cartels. The cartels are running Mexico”

Someone get me out of this nightmare. Imagine how much more peaceful a world this would be if Kamala Harris had won… pic.twitter.com/ogh58RHJaT

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) January 9, 2026

The comments come amid a series of recent actions and statements that critics view as increasingly erratic and confrontational. In recent days, the US carried out strikes against Venezuela, and US forces detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, citing drug trafficking charges under US law. Trump’s inconsistent diplomatic posture has also been evident in how he speaks about foreign leaders, including his sudden shift in tone toward Colombia’s president after earlier attacks.

Trump has also renewed calls for the US to acquire Greenland from Denmark, arguing the move is necessary for national security. Taken together, these developments have fueled concerns that the administration is willing to bypass established international norms to achieve its objectives.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum quickly rejected any suggestion of US military intervention. Speaking in Mexico City, she emphasized that security cooperation must respect Mexico’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

“It is necessary to reaffirm that in Mexico, the people rule, and that we are a free, independent and sovereign country,” Sheinbaum said. She added, “Cooperation, yes. Subordination and intervention, no.”

Critics argue that such threats undermine the US’s credibility on the global stage. They warn that disregarding international law could weaken the country’s ability to oppose actions by Russia in Ukraine or deter potential aggression by China.

When asked whether his administration must follow international law, Trump said, “I do,” before adding that it depends on how international law is defined. He also suggested that his actions are ultimately constrained by “my own morality, my own mind,” a statement that has further alarmed critics concerned about the limits of executive power.

President Trump is taking official steps to examine the criteria for stripping citizenship from certain Americans through a process known as denaturalization. The issue has been discussed publicly by Trump for months, but the administration is now reportedly reviewing how such a policy could be implemented.

The president has identified specific communities he believes should be examined. Speaking to reporters, Trump said he would be looking at the Somali community, claiming that “many of the people that came in from Somalia, they hate our country,” while also indicating that additional groups could be included.

According to UNILAD, Trump has stated that citizenship could be revoked if individuals are found to “deserve” it. He has not released details on how determinations would be made, but he has made clear that the effort would not be limited to a single population.

The administration appears poised to test denaturalization limits

Trump has repeatedly voiced support for denaturalization in recent months. In early December, he said he was “absolutely” prepared to move forward, arguing that some naturalized citizens were criminals who gained status through government failures under the Biden administration. His broader comments about presidential authority and what he believes constrains his power have also raised alarms.

Trump threatens to denaturalize U.S. citizens if they "deserve" ithttps://t.co/hg27JfHQC2

— TIME (@TIME) January 9, 2026

While acknowledging the legal complexity of such actions, Trump said he was unsure whether he had the authority to carry them out. He added that if he did have that power, he would pursue denaturalization “absolutely,” and previously said he would do so in a “heartbeat.”

Naturalization is a voluntary legal process through which immigrants become United States citizens. Applicants must be at least 18 years old, demonstrate basic English proficiency, and show good moral character, with the expectation that citizenship is permanent once granted.

Denaturalization is currently rare and can only occur through a judicial process. It generally involves civil proceedings or criminal convictions tied directly to fraud during the naturalization process. Similar fears about overreach have surfaced in foreign policy debates as well, including bipartisan resistance to Trump-era actions abroad, such as the backlash discussed here regarding Venezuela and accusations of “old-fashioned imperialism” by Bernie Sanders.

Between 1990 and 2017, an average of 11 denaturalization cases were opened per year. Any effort to broaden the criteria would represent a significant expansion of how often citizenship could be challenged.

Civil rights organizations have criticized the administration’s stance. The American Civil Liberties Union described the push to strip citizenship as “systemic and chilling,” warning that it could undermine confidence in the naturalization system.

The ACLU has also stated that citizens may fear that past application errors could be used against them years later. The organization warned that this uncertainty could discourage lawful permanent residents from pursuing citizenship or fully participating in civic life.

The killing of US citizen Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis has sparked a major political controversy, with the Trump administration moving quickly to shape the narrative around the incident. Good, a 37-year-old mother of three and award-winning poet, was shot and killed during an encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

Almost immediately after the shooting, senior administration officials publicly described Good as a violent aggressor. Statements from the Department of Homeland Security and the White House alleged that she attempted to run over officers with her vehicle and framed the incident as an act of domestic terrorism, despite no investigation having yet taken place.

According to The Guardian, those claims were echoed at the highest levels of government, with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance both asserting that Good intentionally attacked law enforcement. The comments drew swift backlash from Minnesota officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who sharply rejected the federal narrative and demanded accountability from DHS.

The official narrative quickly unraveled under video scrutiny

Local Democratic leaders continued to criticize the administration’s response as video evidence became public. Governor Tim Walz said multiple claims made by federal officials were “verifiably false,” while Democratic leaders argued the rush to judgment appeared politically motivated rather than fact-based.

Video footage shows Good reversing her vehicle to allow an ICE vehicle to pass before agents approached her car. As the vehicle began to move forward, an officer walked into its path and was lightly brushed as it passed. The officer remained on his feet and appeared uninjured before firing multiple shots at the vehicle.

Federal officials had claimed that multiple officers were injured during the encounter, but no video evidence supports that assertion. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara later confirmed that when he arrived on the scene, he was informed that only Good had been injured.

President Trump also circulated slowed-down video footage presented as evidence of imminent danger, though viewing the clip at normal speed shows the officer was not knocked down or visibly harmed. Footage from the aftermath shows the officer calmly walking away from the scene, further undermining claims that he had been seriously injured.

Additional commentary from conservative media figures targeted Good’s personal life, while political analysts noted that the administration’s statements appeared disconnected from the available evidence. Governor Walz said that a full accounting of Good’s life and the circumstances of her death would come with time, emphasizing that she should be seen as a person rather than a political symbol.

The incident has added to Trump’s mounting political complications, coming as Senate Republicans are already uneasy after he recently blindsided them by urging “flexibility” on the Hyde Amendment during high-stakes health care negotiations.

President Donald Trump has called off a second round of US military attacks planned for Venezuela, citing what he described as genuine cooperation from the South American country. As reported by Al Jazeera, the decision marks a sharp shift from last week’s military operation toward a strategy centered on economic engagement.

The president confirmed the cancellation on Friday, saying Venezuela had made a “smart gesture” by releasing a large number of political prisoners. He framed the move as a step toward peace following the US operation that resulted in the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the United States and Venezuela were “working well together,” particularly on plans to rebuild the country’s oil and gas infrastructure. He wrote that, because of this cooperation, he had cancelled the “previously expected second Wave of Attacks,” though he added that US ships would remain in place for security reasons.

The focus now appears to be shifting from force to oil

Attention on Friday turned to the White House, where Trump was meeting with senior US oil executives to discuss potential investments in Venezuela. The president said he expected at least $100bn in commitments, with executives from companies including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron expected to attend the meeting. The push follows earlier claims by Trump that the US had effectively secured access to Venezuela’s vast oil wealth, assertions that have already drawn scrutiny from economists questioning whether that wealth is as accessible or lucrative as portrayed.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt described the gathering as a discussion about the “immense opportunity” facing oil companies. Venezuela holds roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil reserves, but years of sanctions and underinvestment have reduced its output to about one percent of global crude production in 2024.

Trump says in an early morning social media post he has “cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks” on Venezuela. pic.twitter.com/bahAPwUvV9

— Annmarie Hordern (@annmarie) January 9, 2026

Trump has argued that restoring Venezuelan production could benefit the US by increasing supply and lowering domestic fuel prices. His comments come as US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said earlier this week that Washington would control the country’s oil industry “indefinitely,” a claim disputed by Venezuela’s acting interim president Delcy Rodriguez, who has insisted her government remains in charge.

The political approach has also appeared to shift. Trump had recently dismissed opposition leader Maria Corina Machado as lacking support inside the country, but later indicated in a television interview that she would travel to Washington next week. At the same time, he told a newspaper that the US was “getting along very well” with Rodriguez’s interim government.

Despite the scale of the proposed investment, significant obstacles remain for US oil companies. Chevron is currently the only US firm licensed to operate in Venezuela, while Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips exited the country in 2007 after refusing to cede majority control of their operations.

The evolving situation in Venezuela comes amid broader geopolitical tensions involving US energy and maritime interests, including a recent incident in which the seizure of an oil tanker intensified US-Russia relations and raised concerns about escalation.

According to The Hill, five state attorneys general have sued the Trump administration after it froze roughly $10 billion designated for child care and family assistance programs. The lawsuit was filed by Democratic-led states California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois, and Colorado, which argue the move is unlawful and politically motivated.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced the freeze earlier this week, citing “serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars” in state-administered programs. The affected states dispute that claim, saying the administration has provided no evidence to justify the action.

The funding pause impacts three major social safety net programs relied on by low-income families. About $7.35 billion was frozen from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, nearly $2.4 billion from the Child Care and Development Fund, and $869 million from the Social Services Block Grant.

The fraud claim driving the legal fight

The attorneys general leading the lawsuit say the administration exceeded its authority by freezing funds without congressional approval. This is echoing broader concerns about how far the president believes his power extends, including claims that international law does not constrain his actions.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said the move immediately threatens vulnerable families by disrupting core anti-poverty programs across the affected states. She accused the administration of targeting essential services under the guise of fraud enforcement, arguing that families are again being placed at risk.

Obviously this was coming since what Trump did was illegal. Congress already appropriated that money for those programs. The President can’t halt that without just cause and all they have is conspiracies and feelings. Despite the illegality, they dgaf about kids after birth.

— WeThePeople (@Middle40Percent) January 9, 2026

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also rejected the fraud rationale, saying HHS has failed to substantiate its allegations. He criticized the administration’s broader approach, which critics say mirrors other recent decisions where long-standing policy norms about Taiwan and China were discarded in favor of unilateral executive action.

The administration’s fraud focus follows heightened scrutiny after a large welfare fraud scandal in Minnesota. That case prompted broader Republican concerns about federal spending oversight, particularly in Democratic-led states.

White House officials have confirmed the review is not limited to Minnesota. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president directed agencies to examine federal programs in California to identify and prosecute fraud where found.

California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed back against those claims, accusing the administration of inflating fraud allegations for political purposes. He argued the White House should instead focus on approving federal aid tied to rebuilding efforts following major wildfires in Los Angeles.

The attorneys general say they are prepared for a prolonged court battle over the freeze and the administration’s authority to impose it. Bonta said the lawsuit reflects a broader pattern of legal challenges to the administration’s actions, adding that the states intend to keep pressing their case in court.

President Donald Trump personally called five Republican senators to criticize them for supporting a war‑powers resolution. The resolution was a symbolic pushback against his administration’s actions in Venezuela, where Trump ordered a surprise military operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Congressional and White House officials confirmed the calls happened.

Trump called Senators Rand Paul from Kentucky, Susan Collins from Maine, Josh Hawley from Missouri, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and Todd Young from Indiana. In some of these calls, he told the senators they were voting against the military, according to two officials, framing their support for the resolution as a threat to national security.

The Wall Street Journal states that he was also initially angry with Senator Steve Daines from Montana, who missed the vote. Trump cooled off after Daines explained he was celebrating his anniversary and would vote with Trump next week. A White House official said Daines and the president are close allies, and that Trump’s frustration was partly about loyalty as much as policy.

The vote was symbolic but Trump took it personally

The Senate vote to advance the war‑powers resolution, 52‑47, marked a rare moment of bipartisan concern over executive military actions without congressional approval. Some Republicans who backed the measure argued Congress should have a say before the U.S. engages further in Venezuela, highlighting a growing rift within the party over foreign policy and presidential authority.

The president knew the vote wouldn’t actually change any policy or reduce his power. But he called the senators anyway because he saw their votes as a personal attack against him. He also believed they were voting against the military operation, which he considers a major success, and against the service members who carried it out. The operation involved seizing millions of oil barrels from Venezuela as part of his broader foreign policy strategy.

Whoa. Trump goes nuclear on the five Republicans who backed the Venezuela war powers resolution, saying they “should never be elected to office again.”

He names them: Collins, Murkowski, Paul, Hawley, Young pic.twitter.com/YvCKdhNzWx

— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) January 8, 2026

During one of the calls, Trump later posted on Truth Social about the senators who backed the resolution, writing, “Republicans should be ashamed of the Senators that just voted with Democrats in attempting to take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young should never be elected to office again.”

Susan Collins received a particularly angry call from Trump. He expressed frustration with her vote and complained she never did anything for him, according to someone familiar with the conversation. Trump said supporting his Venezuela efforts was important for the country.

At one point during the call, he was so angry he threatened to support Collins’s opponent in her re-election race. This confrontational approach reflects Trump’s recent pattern of withdrawing from international organizations and taking aggressive stances on foreign policy matters.

But Collins doesn’t have a Republican opponent. Only Democratic Governor Janet Mills and Democrat Graham Platner, an oyster farmer, have announced plans to run against her. The filing deadline is March 15.

When reporters told Collins about Trump’s social media post, she responded dryly that Trump “obviously is unhappy with the vote.” She added, “I guess this means that he would prefer to have Gov. Mills or somebody else.” Collins is the only one of the five senators facing re-election next year and is considered the most vulnerable GOP senator. She’s running in Maine, a state Kamala Harris won by about 7 percentage points in 2024.

President Donald Trump defended his vice president’s claim about Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday. JD Vance had said Good was part of a “leftwing network” trying to incite violence against federal agents, a claim with no evidence to back it up.

According to The Guardian, when a Fox News reporter pressed Trump on Vance’s comments, he said his vice president “is generally very accurate.” He added that someone near Good when she died was “probably a paid agitator,” suggesting that the reaction of bystanders in videos was staged.

Trump also referenced a video showing federal agents killing Good. “I watched that,” Trump said. “There was a woman screaming: ‘Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!’ She was a[n] agitator, probably a paid agitator, but in my opinion she was an agitator, a very high-level agitator, so professional. She wouldn’t stop screaming.”

Trump’s bizarre theory about protesters lacks any real evidence

But Trump’s claim that only paid protesters would scream at ICE agents doesn’t match reality. Hundreds of recorded incidents over the past year show regular people reacting this way. The video shows someone screaming “shame” at two different times.

First, the person screamed it twice as agents tried to pull Good from her car before opening fire. Later, as the person got closer to the agent who killed Good, they or someone near them shouted the word eight more times as he walked away. This latest controversy adds to Trump’s recent foreign policy decisions that have raised eyebrows.

WATCH: President Trump says Renee Good was a Paid Agitator who Escalated the Situation – 01/09/26 pic.twitter.com/6BeB8Kvdcz

— RSBN (@RSBNetwork) January 9, 2026

Trump also complained that the screaming made it hard for him to watch the video on TV. He said news outlets “turned her down, turned her off” because she was “so loud and so crazy and just not normal.” Trump claimed that when people see something like a neighbor being shot at close range, “they don’t go screaming and screaming, and the same words.”

“The news sort of turned her down, turned her off because you’re trying to watch – she was so loud and so crazy and just not normal,” he said.“When somebody sees something like that,” he said, referring to the point-blank shooting of a neighbor, “they don’t go screaming and screaming, and the same words. So, I guess you could say, professional, but I didn’t think she did a very good job.”

Trump finished by saying “You have agitators and we will always be protecting ICE, and we’re always going to be protecting our border patrol and our law enforcement.” The president has been making bold claims lately, including his statements about Venezuela’s oil wealth.

President Trump said that he wants to limit credit card interest rates to 10 percent for one year. However, he didn’t explain how he plans to make this happen. Such a policy would need approval from Congress or action from regulators.

Trump first talked about this idea during his campaign. According to The New York Times, he said he would put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates at 10 percent.But after taking office, Trump didn’t follow through on this promise. 

His team stopped a rule from the Biden administration that would have limited credit card late fees to $8. His administration also tried to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the country’s main watchdog for consumer finance, without getting approval from Congress.

Trump’s administration has already weakened consumer protections

Russell Vought, who runs the White House budget office, has been leading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since early last year. He stopped bank inspections and ended many lawsuits against financial companies accused of breaking consumer protection laws.

He also tried to fire more than 90 percent of the agency’s workers and recently said he hopes the bureau will be gone within the next two or three months. Federal court cases have stopped him from doing this so far.

HUGE: President Donald J. Trump announces a one year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10% effective January 20, 2026. pic.twitter.com/WKJ4Fk4SnC

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 10, 2026

On Friday, Trump wrote on social media that Americans won’t be “ripped off” anymore by credit card companies charging 20 to 30 percent interest or even more. He added the word “AFFORDABILITY!” to his post. The president has been making bold statements on various topics lately, including his plans to annex Greenland.

Polls show people are less happy with Trump’s economic policies as midterm elections get closer. Trump has changed his message about affordability. Last month, he called it a “fake narrative” and “con job” created by Democrats. He said at a cabinet meeting, “It doesn’t mean anything to anybody”.

Right now, the average credit card interest rate is just under 20 percent, according to Bankrate.com. If Trump wants Congress to pass a law lowering credit card fees, he has support from Senators Bernie Sanders and Josh Hawley. The two senators introduced a bill last year to cap fees at 10 percent for several years, but it didn’t move forward without help from the administration.

Hours before Trump’s social media post, Sanders criticized him online. Sanders wrote that Trump promised to cap credit card rates at 10 percent and stop Wall Street from taking advantage of people. Instead, Trump removed regulations on big banks that charge up to 30 percent interest on credit cards.

BREAKING: Trump announces a one year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10%.

FACT CHECK: Trump has no authority to do this. It would take an act of Congress.

ALSO Millions WOULD lose access to credit. Credit cards price in risk.

At 10%, banks would stop lending to:
-… pic.twitter.com/gD9ozaFAzM

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) January 10, 2026

While Trump focuses on domestic economic promises, his administration has also been taking aggressive action overseas, including a deadly military strike against ISIS. Credit card companies make $130 billion each year from interest and fees, according to a 2024 estimate from the consumer bureau.

Industry groups strongly oppose any limits on interest rates. Last year, the American Bankers Association and 52 state bankers associations wrote a letter against a 10 percent interest cap, saying that government price controls raise costs instead of lowering them.

President Donald Trump met with major U.S. oil companies at the White House to push them to invest $100 billion in Venezuela. But ExxonMobil’s CEO had a blunt response that showed just how hard this will be.

Darren Woods told Trump that Venezuela is “uninvestable” and needs major changes to its legal system and investment protections before his company would consider going back. Woods only agreed to send a team to look at the situation.

According to The Washington Post, the meeting included executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell. Trump promised the companies would make huge profits if they invest in Venezuela’s oil industry. But the firms are hesitant because of the country’s weak economy, security problems, and history of taking over foreign companies’ assets. Chevron is currently the only U.S. company working in Venezuela.

The past losses won’t matter in new deals

Trump said American companies would have a chance to rebuild Venezuela’s damaged energy systems and boost oil production to record levels. He claimed the companies would spend at least $100 billion of their own money. Trump also said he would decide which companies get permission to operate there.

Woods pointed out that Venezuela’s government has taken ExxonMobil’s property twice before. The company is still owed about $1 billion. ConocoPhillips is owed almost $9 billion after losing its assets there. But Trump told companies that past losses won’t give them special treatment in future deals. 

Trump said, “American companies will have the opportunity to rebuild Venezuela’s rotting energy infrastructure and eventually increase oil production to levels never seen before.” He added that this effort could bring “massive wealth” to the companies that invest there and benefit U.S. energy markets. He also said they’re starting fresh and that what happened before was “their fault” under a different president.

Exxon CEO: If you look at the commercial constructs, frameworks in place in Venezuela today, it's uninvestable. Significant changes have to be made to these frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections and change to the hydrocarbon laws. pic.twitter.com/vpdH6ftfzm

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026

Trump promised that security wouldn’t be a problem for companies, even though Venezuela remains extremely dangerous for businesses. He didn’t explain how the U.S. would keep workers safe. Some critics have questioned Trump’s understanding of Venezuela’s complex situation following his recent policy announcements.

While major oil companies were cautious, some smaller executives showed enthusiasm. Jeff Hildebrand from Hilcorp said his company was “fully committed and ready to go.” Shell’s CEO said the company currently produces 45,000 barrels a day in Venezuela and could increase that if the right legal setup is created.

Getting U.S. companies to drill more in Venezuela is a key part of Trump’s plan to fix the country’s economy. Venezuela once produced nearly four times more oil than it does today. But its infrastructure has fallen apart, and companies lost billions when the government seized their assets. It would cost tens of billions of dollars and take up to a decade to return to past production levels.

The plan faces a major problem with oil prices. Oil is currently trading below $60 per barrel, and Trump wants to push prices even lower. But experts say companies need oil at around $80 per barrel just to break even in Venezuela. Ed Hirs, an energy economist, said “the math doesn’t work” and no company will invest in a losing project.

This has led Trump to suggest the U.S. might subsidize companies that invest in Venezuela. But Democratic senators have warned oil executives that Congress could cancel any subsidies the administration offers. Meanwhile, smaller U.S. oil producers are angry about the Venezuela plan.

They say it hurts the domestic industry by supporting a foreign competitor while U.S. companies are already struggling with low prices and laying off workers. The president’s approach has even drawn criticism from some Republican lawmakers regarding his recent decision-making process.

The Senate took a significant step by voting to advance a bipartisan resolution under the War Powers Act, aiming to block President Trump from using military force against Venezuela. This move comes amid escalating tensions and the president’s clear intentions regarding the South American nation, actions that progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has absolutely slammed as “old-fashioned imperialism,” as per The Hill.

The president has been very open about his intentions in the aftermath of the capture and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. President Trump stated the U.S. will essentially run the country until a stable, orderly transition can occur. Even more controversially, the president has indicated that U.S. oil companies will take control of Venezuela’s vital petroleum infrastructure.

Sanders drew comparisons to evil, powerful regimes in history. “You’re talking about old-fashioned imperialism,” Sanders explained. “And all that that is, throughout the history of the world — England, Spain, Portugal, way back when — powerful nations went into poor, undeveloped areas, and just exploited their resources.”

Sanders stated the obvious, but does the current administration and its jingoism have any limits?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently confirmed just how close the administration is to executing their plan. He told reporters on Capitol Hill that a deal is nearly finalized to sell between 30 million and 50 barrels of Venezuelan oil on the open market. The proceeds from this sale would then be used to assist in the nation’s transition to a new government.

This is where the administration says it’s helping the Venezuelan people, but it’s certainly a unique form of aid. Rubio clarified how the finances would work: “We’re going to sell in the marketplace — at market rates, not at the discounts that Venezuela was getting. That money will then be handled in such a way that we will control how it’s dispersed in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people.”

Senator Bernie Sanders: Trump admin running Venezuela "old-fashioned imperialism" https://t.co/BY9p6Ub93p

— The Hill (@thehill) January 8, 2026

The rhetoric isn’t just focused on Venezuela, either. The president has also threatened action in other countries across the Western Hemisphere, specifically calling out U.S. allies Colombia and Mexico, claiming they aren’t adequately addressing drug trafficking issues. The president also claimed that the communist government in Cuba is “ready to fall.”

For Sanders, this entire approach flies in the face of a century-long movement throughout Latin America to push back on U.S. intervention. He argues that the region has worked hard to say, “These are our countries. You can’t overthrow our governments, you can’t run our governments, you can’t steal our natural resources. We have to control our own future.” The Vermont progressive concluded that President Trump is basically saying, “To hell with all of that. We have the power, we’re going to do anything we want.”

The bipartisan resolution to block military force was advanced with the support of the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, which is expected, but also five Republicans. Unsurprisingly, President Trump quickly condemned the senators who voted for the resolution, arguing they should not be reelected.

President Trump just dropped a truly massive foreign policy bombshell, stating that whether China moves militarily against Taiwan is entirely up to Chinese President Xi Jinping to decide, as per The Hill. This is a jaw-dropping departure from decades of established American policy, which has always prioritized maintaining the status quo and supporting Taipei’s defense.

The president stated that Xi views Taiwan “to be a part of China and that’s up to him what he’s going to be doing.” That phrasing alone is shocking because it implies the US is taking a neutral stance on what its own intelligence agencies view as one of the world’s biggest potential flashpoints. While President Trump gave his counterpart the ultimate authority, he did express personal reservations. He noted that he has told Xi that he would be “very unhappy if he did that and I don’t think he’ll do that. I hope he doesn’t.”

This conversation is happening against a backdrop of serious escalation. Over recent weeks, Beijing has been ramping up aggressive military actions dangerously close to the island. Chinese officials confirmed they conducted live drills that included a massive show of force. We’re talking about 130 aircraft, including fighters and bombers, 14 military ships, and eight other official vessels all operating in the area.

President Trump tried to draw a distinction between the China/Taiwan situation and the recent US operation to capture Venezuelan regime leader Nicolás Maduro

It’s no surprise that lawmakers in Washington are extremely concerned about these drills. The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party immediately condemned the action, reiterating Washington’s firm commitment to its alliance with Taipei.

Committee Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and then-ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) released a joint statement. They wrote that the drills are “intended to intimidate Taiwan and other democracies in the region and to undermine peace and stability across the Indo-Pacific.” They also argued that “By rehearsing coercive military scenarios and projecting force beyond its borders, the Chinese Communist Party is seeking to reshape the regional order through aggression and intimidation.”

Donald Trump says it is “up to” Chinese President Xi Jinping whether China takes over Taiwan.

“He (Xi) considers it to be a part of China, and that’s up to him what he’s going to be doing,” Trump told The New York Times. “But I’ve expressed to him that I would be very unhappy if… pic.twitter.com/Rg2fxEwssc

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 8, 2026

The lawmakers made it clear that the traditional US position remains intact, stating, “The United States stands with Taiwan and fellow democracies and will continue to work with partners to preserve Taiwan’s security and uphold a free, open, and stable Indo-Pacific.” This sharp contrast between the president’s personal remarks and the formal stance of Congress highlights just how complex the situation has become.

He noted that Maduro’s capture followed signs of a “real threat” to the United States. Ultimately, the president seemed confident that Xi wouldn’t take action while he is in office. “He may do it after we have a different president, but I don’t think he’s going to do it with me as president,” Trump said.

Economist Paul Krugman just dropped some serious analysis, claiming that the vast oil wealth President Trump believes the U.S. is seizing in Venezuela simply doesn’t exist, as reported by The Hill. President Trump has made oil the absolute centerpiece of his plan to manage Venezuela following the recent capture of the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and the military strikes conducted on Caracas.

In fact, following the abduction, Krugman noted that the president mentioned the word “oil” a staggering 27 times during a press conference. The president declared, “We’re going to take back the oil that, frankly, we should have taken back a long time ago.” However, Krugman argues that this entire venture isn’t really a war for oil; it’s a war for oil fantasies. The economist wrote that the immense fortune President Trump seems to imagine waiting there to be taken just isn’t real.

The president announced that Venezuela will turn over between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S. He said the oil would be brought directly to unloading docks via storage ships, with help from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. As for how the money will be handled, he wrote that this oil “will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!”

It seems like the U.S. might be stuck with a high-cost asset that won’t deliver the riches President Trump is expecting

President Trump believes that acquiring this asset will allow the U.S. to “fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.” This aggressive plan comes after the president designated Maduro as the head of a “terrorist cartel” and accused the Venezuelan government of sending drugs to the U.S.

Here’s where Krugman’s economic reality check comes in, and frankly, it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. While Venezuela is often cited as having the world’s largest known oil reserves, Krugman explains that this claim is based on a reclassification of heavy oil as “proved” oil.

‘Vast wealth Trump imagines’ from Venezuelan oil doesn’t exist: Krugman https://t.co/4IFK0IiuPJ The oil is heavy and expensive to extract and refine

— Paul R, Watching US Decline and China's Rise (@datroot19) January 8, 2026

Krugman cited economist Torsten Slok, who previously highlighted that most of the oil is “extra-heavy, which has low recovery and a high cost to produce.” If you’re trying to turn a profit, low recovery and high cost are the two things you absolutely want to avoid. This suggests that the immense, usable reserves are just politically motivated bluster.

Furthermore, even if the oil were easy to extract, the market conditions aren’t playing ball. Thanks to the increased supply from fracking, oil prices are cheap. Krugman calculates that the break-even price for Venezuela’s oil is around $62 a barrel. That figure simply wouldn’t allow oil companies to make a profit, making it a very unattractive investment.

Krugman concluded that President Trump’s conviction that he has captured a lucrative prize in Venezuela’s oil fields is an “unrealistic fantasy.”

President Trump recently revealed that the only thing that actually limits his power when it comes to ordering foreign military intervention is his own personal moral compass. That’s a pretty staggering statement, and it came out during a New York Times interview following weeks of intense scrutiny over U.S. actions overseas.

When asked specifically if there were any limits on his international authority, the president was crystal clear about where the true boundary lies. He told the interviewer, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

The president was blunt about his priorities, stating directly, “I don’t need international law.” He quickly added that he is “not looking to hurt people.” While his initial comments dismissed international law entirely, he did walk that back slightly later in the discussion. He suggested he does have to adhere to international law, but qualified that adherence by saying it “depends what your definition of international law is.”

These comments follow a really active period for the U.S. military

In the first year of his second term, the U.S. has conducted strikes against groups in places like Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran. The most high-profile action was definitely the decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. That move immediately drew intense backlash and serious concerns that a major war might start.

Congressional pushback is already happening, and it’s coming from both sides of the aisle. Five Senate Republicans actually joined a bipartisan group to advance a War Powers resolution. This resolution is designed specifically to block the president from using any further military force against Venezuela without explicit congressional authorization.

Donald Trump Says 'My Own Morality' Is 'the Only Thing That Can Stop Me' from World Dominance: 'I Don't Need International Law' https://t.co/lbfcME4iJj

— People (@people) January 8, 2026

Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, voiced her significant concerns about the president’s intent to essentially “run” Venezuela. While she was supportive of the initial action, calling the operation to seize Maduro “extraordinary in its precision and complexity,” she drew a hard line on further military expansion.

Senator Collins made it clear that while she supported the initial seizure, “I do not support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The president is still absolutely focused on acquiring Greenland, which is a Danish territory. He brought up the issue in the same interview, saying that “ownership is important.” For months, he’s been describing the island as essential to national security. Now he’s adding a psychological element to his reasoning, stating that the territory is “psychologically needed for success.”

He explained his perspective on why ownership matters so much more than any agreement. “Ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document,” he said.

President Donald Trump warned that any country producing and selling drugs into the U.S. could be “subject to attack,” specifically calling out Colombia, prompting an immediate and strong rejection from Bogota, as per Newsweek. Colombian President Gustavo Petro didn’t just issue a formal diplomatic response, though. He went straight to X and gave President Trump a genuinely bizarre invitation.

Petro said, “Come to Colombia, Mr. Trump, I invite you, so that you can participate in the destruction of the 9 laboratories we do daily to prevent cocaine from reaching the US.” Earlier during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, President Trump told reporters that any country involved in the drug trade was at risk. The president mentioned that if drugs come through a certain country, or if the U.S. thinks they are building “mills for, whether it’s fentanyl or cocaine,” they are “subject to attack.”

He specifically cited Colombia, stating, “I hear the country of Colombia is making cocaine, they have cocaine manufacturing plants.” The Colombian Foreign Ministry swiftly pushed back, stating that they reject “Any threat of external aggression that violates the dignity, integrity of the territory and sovereignty of the Colombian people.” The ministry also stressed that Colombia “continues with its unwavering commitment to the fight against drug trafficking.”

Colombia made an urgent call for fraternity between Latin America and the Caribbean to ensure unity prevails against any external intervention

This latest threat comes amid mounting tensions between the U.S. and several South American nations. The Trump administration has been contemplating military strikes in Venezuela, and both Venezuela and Colombia have condemned U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The White House claims these are necessary routes for drug trafficking.

Bogota has been especially vocal in its opposition to these U.S. boat strikes, which the White House defends as lawful operations targeting “narco-terrorists.” Unfortunately, these operations have resulted in significant casualties. Since early September, these lethal operations against suspected non-state vessels have allegedly killed more than 80 people.

President Gustavo Petro to President Mr. Donald Trump:

"Come to Colombia, Mr. Trump, I invite you, so you can participate in the destruction of the nine drug labs we destroy daily to prevent cocaine from reaching the US.

Without missiles, I have destroyed 18,400 drug labs… pic.twitter.com/WLv2KHGNGW

— Duke Of Nigeria. (@xagreat) December 3, 2025

These strikes have raised serious concerns about accountability and human rights. Lawmakers are currently reviewing reports that said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth verbally ordered a second strike on an alleged drug smuggling vessel back in September, reportedly to kill survivors. Critics are pointing out that this action could amount to a war crime.

The situation is complicated because Colombia is, undeniably, one of the world’s largest producers of cocaine. While the country has historically cooperated with the U.S. on counter-narcotics efforts, that relationship has deteriorated sharply. In September, Colombia was listed as a country failing to cooperate in U.S. anti-drug efforts for the first time in nearly 30 years. Following that, the Trump administration imposed sweeping sanctions against President Petro, his family, and a top Cabinet member, accusing them of aiding the global drug trade.

In November, President Petro ceased intelligence cooperation with the U.S. and condemned attacks on suspected drug-running boats that resulted in the deaths of Colombian nationals. The Trump administration is expected to continue its controversial strikes, though what specific military action may be taken against Colombia and Venezuela remains unclear.

Pop singer Sabrina Carpenter has fiercely disavowed President Trump’s administration for using her music to promote its agenda, prompting an absolutely shocking and aggressive response from the White House spokesperson, as per Al Jazeera. Carpenter took to social media to react after her song Juno, from her 2024 album Short n’ Sweet, was featured in a video montage detailing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

Carpenter didn’t hold back, calling the footage “evil and disgusting.” She added a very clear message to the administration: “Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.” The White House had actually used her own lyrics in the caption for the clip, quoting, “Have you ever tried this one? Bye-bye.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson retorted with a statement that was anything but measured. “Here’s a Short ‘n Sweet message for Sabrina Carpenter: we won’t apologise for deporting dangerous criminal illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from our country,” Jackson said. She then aimed a direct insult at the singer, adding, “Anyone who would defend these sick monsters must be stupid, or is it slow?”

The administration’s response doubles down on the criminal deportation propaganda

It seems like the administration’s use of unauthorized intellectual property isn’t limited to pop stars, either. Even beloved children’s characters are getting pulled into the political fray. Kids Can Press, the publisher of the Canadian icon Franklin the Turtle, had to step in after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a heavily manipulated image featuring the friendly turtle.

The image Hegseth shared on X showed Franklin aiming a bazooka at boats, which is definitely not the character we grew up with. Hegseth captioned the post, “Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists.” Kids Can Press quickly condemned the post. They reminded everyone that Franklin is supposed to stand for kindness and inclusivity, not violence.

‘Evil and disgusting’: Sabrina Carpenter condemns White House’s use of her song https://t.co/WgCOuGYniQ via @politico

— EyeOnLodi #LGM (@LodiNJNews) December 3, 2025

You might remember that this pattern of artists protesting the administration’s use of their music has been going on for a while now. This isn’t the first time the Trump team has faced backlash over unauthorized soundtracks.

American singer and guitarist Kenny Loggins recently demanded the removal of a video posted by the president that used his massive hit Danger Zone from the movie Top Gun. That video, which used AI-generated images of President Trump as a fighter pilot dropping excrement on political opponents, was seriously gross. Back in 2024, Celine Dion condemned the use of her iconic song My Heart Will Go On in a campaign video. Beyoncé reacted similarly that same year over the use of her song Freedom.

Senator Mark Kelly recently confirmed that his office is now dealing with a significant increase in “graphic” and “violent” threats following President Trump’s public criticism of him, according to The Hill. The Arizona Democrat stated that the situation has escalated dramatically, noting that he’s currently seeing more threats coming in during a single day than his team used to receive over several months.

This wave of intimidation stems directly from a video Kelly released last month alongside five other Democratic lawmakers. The group directly addressed active-duty military and intelligence personnel on X, stating a clear legal principle: “Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

The lawmakers involved are certainly qualified to speak on this topic. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former NASA astronaut, joined Senator Elissa Slotkin and Democratic Representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow in the message. It’s important to remember that all six of these individuals have relevant military or intelligence backgrounds, so they definitely know what they’re talking about when it comes to service protocol and the law.

Trump’s messaging was outrageous even by his own standards

President Trump, however, took extreme issue with the video’s message. He responded by calling the lawmakers “traitors” who should be imprisoned. He even took to his Truth Social platform to post that the “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR” was “punishable by DEATH!” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later had to clarify the administration’s position. Leavitt stated last month that while President Trump wants the lawmakers “held accountable,” she made it clear he does not want them executed.

The threats aren’t just aimed at the senator, either. Kelly confirmed that his wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords, has also been directly targeted. This context is critical because Giffords survived being shot in the head during a constituent event back in 2011, which tragically led to her retiring from Congress the following year. She has since become a major advocate for gun reform, making these violent threats especially awful and chilling for the couple.

Trump's violent rhetoric has real consequences. Mark Kelly and his wife Gabby Giffords, a shooting survivor, now face graphic threats daily after Trump called for his arrest. This is the dangerous reality of normalizing calls for political violence from the top.
1/2

— tomwellborn3rd (@TomWellborn3) December 3, 2025

“We can’t normalize this,” Kelly used the interview to strongly criticize the president’s fitness for office. “That’s one of the problems here, is that Donald Trump is so singularly unqualified for this job as president of the United States, and the things he says [are] so ridiculous, people are starting to get comfortable with it,” the senator noted.

Beyond the threats, the administration also initiated an official review into Kelly last month, which is another form of serious pressure. The Pentagon is looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” which could potentially result in Kelly being recalled to active duty for a court martial. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is currently dealing with pressure from all aisles, instructed Navy Secretary John Phelan to complete this review by December 10.

Kelly pushed back against this review again on Tuesday, saying he sees the entire effort as an attempt to silence dissent. Notably, Kelly was among the lawmakers who pushed for a full investigation into the controversial strike on the Venezuelan coast. “[Trump] wants to shut people up,” Kelly stated firmly. He added that he won’t let the administration silence him, concluding, “I’m not going to be intimidated by him or Pete Hegseth and his threats to court martial me.”

President Trump is hinting that he might completely get rid of personal income tax. He wants to replace it with heavy tariffs on foreign goods to pay for the government instead. This would totally change the economy if it actually happens.

According to Fox Business, podcaster Joe Rogan asked Trump if he was serious about removing personal income taxes for Americans. Trump answered with clear confidence, saying “Yeah, sure, why not?” He explained that tariffs could easily fund the government instead of taxing people’s wages. He’s now treating this as a serious policy goal for his administration.

Trump has been pushing this idea for a while now. He argues that the US needs to go back to an older system where global trade was the main way the government made money. In January, he said it’s time for the United States to return to the system that made the country richer and more powerful than ever before. He added that the goal should be to help American citizens by taxing foreign nations instead of taxing citizens to help other countries.

Trump’s latest tax proposal goes further than his earlier plans

“Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won’t be paying income tax,” Trump told the media after a cabinet meeting. 

Trump floated a different tax plan earlier in his second administration. That proposal only removed income tax for people earning under $150,000, with tariffs still replacing the lost money. Now he’s talking about removing personal income tax completely for everyone.

BREAKING: President Trump says he’s expecting the income tax to soon be ABOLISHED

There’d be NO better way to unleash the U.S. economy.

“I believe that at some point in the not too distant future, you won't even have income tax to pay, because the money we're taking in is so… pic.twitter.com/ifoCTmXYRA

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 2, 2025

Getting rid of income tax sounds great for most people. Your paycheck would be much bigger without federal deductions. But making this happen politically is very difficult. Removing the income tax would require huge changes to the entire US tax code. Major companies have faced their own tax controversies recently, showing how complicated tax issues can be.

Trump has a narrow majority in the House, so the proposal would likely face serious problems getting passed. It won’t be an easy fight, and there will probably be major pushback from both political parties.

President Trump wants to cut the income tax completely- replacing with tariffs- if he accomplishes this He will be the greatest President in American History since Andrew Jackson!
Would you like no income tax? Reply and let me know!
I bet I already know the answer! pic.twitter.com/rgje3PDyQk

— GrrrGraphics-Ben Garrison Cartoons (@GrrrGraphics) November 28, 2025

Trump’s views on taxes have changed a lot over his political career. Back in 1999, when he thought about running for president under the Reform Party, his focus was totally different. At that time, he reportedly considered a one-time tax on people’s net worth if they had wealth over $10 million. That’s completely opposite to his current plan of removing personal income taxes and shifting the cost onto global trade.

Removing income tax used to be considered a fringe political idea. But now, with Trump strongly pushing tariffs as the main way to make money, this concept has moved much closer to mainstream political debate. It shows how much the focus on tariff revenue has changed the conversation about how to pay for the federal government. The president has been making other controversial moves too, including telling government employees to stop certain practices that have been standard since 1988.

Costco just dropped a legal bomb, filing a massive lawsuit that demands a full refund for tariffs if the Supreme Court decides to strike down President Trump’s sweeping trade taxes, as per The Hill. They’re joining dozens of major corporations that have lined up recently, all hoping to reclaim what could be billions of dollars if the court rules against the administration.

The sheer scale of this legal chaos is genuinely stunning. You’ve got companies from every corner of the economy jumping in. We’re talking about massive players in the auto industry like Kawasaki and several corporations that are part of the Toyota Group. Even the food business is involved, with names like Bumble Bee Foods filing suits. The list stretches to cosmetics with Revlon and even includes niche businesses like the board game maker Smirk & Dagger Games.

It’s a frenzy of litigation right now. This proactive filing is absolutely necessary for these companies, which is a terrible sign for the government’s legal position. Costco, like the others, stated clearly that it needed to file its own case because it is “not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief.”

Much of this coordinated action is being handled by a single law firm

Crowell & Moring represents Costco and has brought roughly 50 nearly identical lawsuits on behalf of these separate companies. They know exactly what they’re doing, and they’re making sure their clients are positioned perfectly to reclaim funds should the government lose the main fight.

All of this legal maneuvering is happening because the Supreme Court is getting ready to deliver a decision that could invalidate the entire tariff scheme. At the heart of the matter is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1970s emergency powers law. The critical question is whether President Trump had the authority to invoke this specific act to justify his widespread tariffs. The justices heard oral arguments on this crucial case last month.

What a damn mess the idiot has foisted upon this Country.

Costco sues US to preserve tariff refunds if Trump loses appeal https://t.co/be5w29KNRR

— Caroline DeSantis-Collins (@penske2005) December 1, 2025

The IEEPA is designed to give the president unilateral power to “regulate” importation when it’s necessary to combat a declared national emergency. However, a group of Democratic-led states and several small businesses are arguing that the president has stretched that legal justification way too far.

President Trump first invoked the IEEPA to declare a fentanyl emergency, using that justification to impose levies on Canada, China, and Mexico. Since then, he has expanded the scope, declaring a “trade deficit emergency” to implement his “reciprocal” tariffs on trading partners across the globe. However, we already have a precedent of a federal court striking down Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, it’s going to cause monumental financial chaos. Not only would the tariffs disappear, but the government would be on the hook for refunding potentially billions of dollars to the dozens of companies that have been smart enough to file their own individual lawsuits.

These corporations clearly aren’t waiting around to see what happens. They’re proactively securing their financial future, which is definitely the right move here.