Trump threatens war against Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Greenland, and Venezuela (again).

January 5, 2026

Trump is punch drunk on the success of the unlawful abduction of former President Maduro of Venezuela.

Over the weekend, he and Secretary of State Rubio have threatened or implied US military intervention in Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland. Trump also threatened a large-scale invasion of Venezuela if its acting president does not follow Trump’s orders.

We face a moral moment in America’s history unlike any we have faced before: Will America become an aggressor nation that rules through force and intimidation to expand our ample supplies of oil and strategic minerals?

Will we become Putin’s Russia, or will we remain the America of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and MLK?

Our choice is stark. It admits no ambiguity. Our answer cannot be motivated by political strategy or polls. We are either a nation committed to democratic principles at home and abroad, or we are a militarized nation that exists to bludgeon other countries into submission for profit.

The “success” of the unlawful abduction of Maduro has caused Trump and his sycophants to misunderstand the nature of the events on Friday. Capturing Maduro in a limited strike is the beginning of a precarious and dangerous path, not the end. Whatever happened in Venezuela last week will not translate easily to other nations.

Only a fool would believe that a single success means that the US can replicate that effort in another country, let alone four. Sadly, Trump is a monumental fool, and his advisors are small men who lack courage, integrity, intelligence, and foresight.

Worst of all, Trump’s ignorant threats are written with ink that contains the lifeblood of America’s sons and daughters—who volunteered to defend our nation, not to conquer others. The unlawful abduction of Maduro resulted in the deaths of 80 Venezuelans and Cubans. Any mistake could have reversed that toll from “80 Venezuelans and Cubans” to “80 American soldiers.”

The moral choice we face binds everyone and every institution in America.

The press must not avoid the word “war” when describing a military attack on Venezuela that resulted in the unlawful abduction of its president and the declaration by the US that it exercises control over a sovereign nation. See The Intercept, U.S. Media Refuses to Call Trump’s Venezuela Attack an Act of War

Nor should the media describe the unlawful abduction of Maduro as an “arrest, capture, detention, or rendition.” It was an illegal abduction under international and US law.¹

Nor should the media attempt to sanitize the illegal war on Venezuela by describing the unlawful use of military force with breathless praise for the “precision” and “effectiveness” of US soldiers doing their duty. Their valor does not legitimize the crimes and broken oaths of their superiors, who violated international law and US treaties to illegally abduct Maduro and kill his security detail. See, e.g., NYTimes, Inside ‘Operation Absolute Resolve,’ the U.S. Effort to Capture Maduro. (“In contrast to messy U.S. interventions of the past — by the military in Panama or the C.I.A. in Cuba — the operation to grab Mr. Maduro was virtually flawless . . . In the run-up, Delta Force commandos rehearsed the extraction inside a full-scale model of Mr. Maduro’s compound that the Joint Special Operations Command had built in Kentucky. They practiced blowing through steel doors at ever-faster paces.”)

US corporations should not cooperate with Trump’s attempt to steal the resources that belong to the Venezuelan people. Hedge funds and banks must not finance Trump’s lethal takeover of a sovereign nation.

Democrats in Congress must not cower in fear that opposing an immoral and unconstitutional war might diminish their chances of reelection. See Axios, Democrats fume at party response to Maduro capture: “It looks weak” (“Some centrists and battleground-district members — who spoke to Axios on the condition of anonymity to offer candid criticisms of their party’s messaging . . . [One Democrat said,] “As Democrats we can’t just condemn what happened ... I wish the Democratic Party would be a little bit more measured on this.“)

To be clear, everyone is glad Maduro no longer rules Venezuela—and everyone should be outraged that achieving that result violated the US Constitution, US criminal law, and multiple US treaties that collectively constitute the “supreme law of the land.”

The anonymous Democrats who called Axios to whine about “messaging” while ignoring the brazen violation of the Constitution should resign now before we can identify them and defeat them in primaries. They do not deserve to hold positions of public trust that require them to defend and protect the Constitution.

Finally, what about us, i.e., the “governed” whose consent is necessary for the government to exist? Trump will continue to act as a warlord drunk on power until we convince Republican members of Congress, senior military leaders, business leaders, and every elected official that the political cost of supporting Trump is intolerable. That requires a massive presence in the streets every day.

It may take time to build that momentum, but America’s sons and daughters will pay for Trump’s war lust with their lives. We must protect them. And we must protect America’s standing in the world as a nation that seeks peace and stability.

Finally, we must defend the Constitution, which either governs our nation or does not. Trump’s war on Venezuela and threats to attack other nations demonstrate that he does not believe he is constrained by the Constitution. We must prove him wrong.

Trump’s threats against other nations.

There is so much unfolding that it is impossible to capture the full extent of developments in this newsletter.

In various interviews and press gaggles, Trump and Rubio said the following:

Regarding Colombia

In an interview on News Nation, per @atrupar.com on BlueSky:

Trump: Colombia is very sick too. Run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the US, and he’s not gonna be doing it very long

Q: So there will be an operation by the US in Colombia?

Trump: Sounds good to me

Regarding Cuba

Marco Rubio (on Meet the Press) said,

I’m not going to talk to you about what our future steps are going to be and our policies are going to be right now in this regard. But I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro.

Also, per Axios, Rubio said if he “lived in Havana” and if he was “in the government,” he’d be “concerned, at least.”

On Venezuela

Trump, in The Atlantic, Trump Threatens Venezuela’s New Leader With a Fate Worse Than Maduro’s (Accessible to all)

If the new Venezuelan leader, Delcy Rodríguez, “doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”

“You know, rebuilding there [in Venezuela] and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”

In a press gaggle on Air Force One, Trump said, “We are in charge” of Venezuela.

On Greenland

Also in The Atlantic, linked above:

Trump said it was up to others to decide what U.S.-military action in Venezuela means for Greenland. “They are going to have to view it themselves. I really don’t know. . . .You know, I wasn’t referring to Greenland at that time. But we do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense.”

On Mexico

Trump said the following on Fox News (per Axios):

We could be politically correct and be nice and say, ‘Oh yeah she is.’ She [Mexico’s President] is very frightened of the cartels,” Trump said. “They’re running Mexico. I’ve asked her numerous times would you like us to take out the cartels. ‘No, no, no, Mr. President, no, no, no, please.’ So we have to do something.”

The unlawful nature of the war on Venezuela and threats against other nations

Marco Rubio appeared on Meet the Press to defend the invasion of Venezuela and Trump’s assertion that “We are in charge” of Venezuela. He failed to do so because no justification exists. See Raw Story, ‘Let me ask the question again’: Marco Rubio stumbles when pressed on Venezuela takeover.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News pressed Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “under what legal authority” could the United States government control Venezuela, with President Donald Trump announcing Saturday that his administration would “run” Venezuela until a transfer of power can take place.

Rubio dodged and evaded the question, but Stephanopoulos continued to press. him. Finally, Rubio said,

“As far as what our legal authority is… it’s very simple, we have court orders! I don’t know, is a court not a legal authority? The legal authority is the court orders that we have!”

The only “court order” that exists is the indictment of Maduro, which in no way authorizes the US to “run” Venezuela. Rubio’s answer is garbage—the worst answer given by any Secretary of State to any question asked during an interview.

There is no legal justification for the attack on Venezuela, the unlawful abduction of Maduro, or the assertion that the US will “run” the sovereign nation for the benefit of US oil companies.

Steve Vladeck published an excellent discussion in his Substack, One First, Five Questions About the Maduro Arrest Operation.

Vladeck is a professor at Georgetown University Law School. His analysis is detailed and nuanced, as it should be, and I invite you to read it. But Vladeck cuts through the legal argument to address the moral question facing all Americans:

Whatever else might be said about the law and politics of last night’s events, that’s the point from which I can’t escape—that there’s something deeply thuggish about this entire affair, and fundamentally contrary to what I’d always understood the United States’ position in the world to be.

Well said, and true! No matter how the administration attempts to dress up its legal arguments, they cannot cover the stench of immoral and thuggish actions that are contrary to the core of American democracy.

Vladeck explains that the administration’s legal arguments depend on internal DOJ memoranda, called OLC memos (for Office of Legal Counsel). Those memoranda do not and cannot override the US Constitution or federal law. They purport to interpret the law, but their authors are frequently highly partisan actors seeking to justify their boss’s illegal conduct.

In this instance, the OLC memo that purportedly justifies the attack on Venezuela includes one written in 1989 by a young lawyer named Bill Barr—who later rose to infamy as the worst Attorney General in US history, being displaced only by Pam Bondi.

As explained by Vladeck, the OLC memo asserts that the president has “inherent constitutional authority to use the FBI for extraterritorial arrests, even in circumstances in which the arrests violate international law.”

But as Vladeck notes, saying that the FBI can violate international law to execute an illegal arrest still leaves you in the position of violating international law:

There’s no attempt to even try to argue that this operation was consistent with international law—for the obvious reason that . . . it isn’t.

So, the administration is not attempting to argue that the attack on Venezuela or the abduction of Maduro are legal under international law. And that’s the problem: If international law can be violated on the subjective whim of a nation’s leader, there is no international law—and the world is a markedly more dangerous place.

While the mission to abduct Maduro may have been an operational success, it has changed the legal and risk calculus in numerous delicate standoffs around the world. The capture of Maduro may be the tipping point for the invasion of Taiwan (by China) or Poland (by Russia).

The lack of foresight is stunning, and the damage may be permanent. No one in the military should be “celebrating” the success of a mission that may have endangered tens of thousands of US troops in future military action.

Concluding Thoughts

I received an email from a reader whose feelings likely resonate with many other readers. The reader wrote:

I am not a lawyer, but I cannot understand why there are no immediate consequences for all those involved. Everything Trump did was illegal!

We can protest. But so what, he couldn't care less. I’m at a point where I don’t want to know anything anymore. I know this is [Trump’s] intent. It is so scary and disheartening. . . .

I am not giving up, mind you, but I can’t tell if we’re making any progress at all.

The reader’s frustration is understandable. But let’s get this out of the way: our protests are not designed to change Trump’s mind. The reader is right. He doesn’t care. But persuadable independents care, disaffected Republicans care, and four million Democrats who voted in 2020 but not 2024 care. We are trying to reach those people. They can help us tip the balance of power in the House and the Senate in 2026. If we can do that, there will be immediate consequences for Trump’s unconstitutional actions.

Moreover, despite the reader’s concern, it is clear that we are making progress. The elections in November and December 2025 demonstrated that the electorate has swung against Trump by double-digits. We are not guaranteed victory in November, but the trendline suggests we are making solid progress.

I know it can be exhausting to keep adding new issues to our list. But it is always so in every resistance movement. The good news is that we do not have to do everything ourselves. There are tens of millions of Americans who will take to the streets in protest over Trump’s wars. Your presence will inspire others to action. As long as we do not give up, we will prevail!

Talk to you tomorrow!

Pro-democracy protest photos:

1/4/2026, NH Bridge Brigade. We’ve been here above I-89 in Enfield, NH every Sunday for several weeks. In spite of the 20-degree weather and the breeze (see flag), we had a record turnout of 7 participants.

This afternoon we were able to do a "pop up" visibility message on the northernmost I-93 overpass in Franconia Notch. Despite the 10 degrees (or below) temps, over a dozen people participated as we displayed our "NO WARS" messages to northbound and southbound drivers.

Here are some photos from today’s protest in West Chester PA

It was a balmy day of 18 degrees in Norwich, Vermont. We needed to feel connected to protest against the madmen and the military in what they did to Venezuela. We all felt the need to Rise Up and bring awareness for others to do the same.

Minneapolis, MN

“Wake Up!” and “Resist!”

Sleet, 24° F, and 15-knot winds reinforce our message to Minneapolis drivers: this is a serious moment.

Bangor, ME. Not all are pictured, but about 100 to 150 people gathered in 14-degree temps (luckily it was a bright sunny day and there was no wind) to protest Trump’s illegal occupation of Venezuela.

Mount Vernon, Iowa. Yesterday was the first of our weekly protests as we objected to the corruption, cruelty, and illegality of the current administration. We are a town of about 4000. Yesterday, 24 people came out in 29°F weather. As you can imagine, we are hoping for more each week.

A small but mighty group in Marin, CA, who braved flooded roads and inclement weather to spontaneously protest.

Ann Arbor, MI.

24 degrees

Concord, MA

On Sunday afternoon 70 intrepid, angry, noble souls joined the weekly Sunday Afternoon Route 2 Resistance in Concord MA, braving the cold and icy overpass bike/walkway to share their outrage in response to Trump’s illegal attack on Venezuela. Most cars traveling East and West honked their approval.

Daily Dose of Perspective

The Pelican Nebula is a star-forming region of dense molecular clouds. It is located about 1,800 light-years from Earth.

1. The unlawful abduction of Maduro meets the requirements of kidnapping under federal law. [Footnote: See 18 USC § 1201 “Kidnapping.” The statute provides that the crime of kidnapping occurs whenever someone “unlawfully seizes . . . or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person . . . .”] Sadly, the US Supreme Court has held that the unlawful abduction of a defendant is not a defense to their prosecution—a bizarre result that encourages US officials to engage in unlawful conduct. But whatever happened to Maduro, he was not “arrested” or “detained.” He was unlawfully abducted under international and US law. The media should use those words to describe how the US brought Maduro to the US.