SmartNews

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday amplified an op-ed article calling for a Trump-backed regime change in Venezuela as administration continues to float the possibility of a ground war in the country.

The New York Post, a notably MAGA-friendly outlet often described as President Donald Trump's "favorite paper," published the piece Leavitt's official government X account shared on Wednesday. It was written María Corina Machado, an Venezuelan activist and leader of the country's opposition against President Nicolás Maduro. She was the recipient of the 2025 Nobel Prize, and has frequently praised Trump for his opposition to Maduro and attempted to court his help in removing the Venezuelan president from office.

Leavitt's account shared a link to the piece alongside its headline, "President Trump is a champion in the fight for ‘Venezuelan freedom.'"

"White House press secretary amplifies column calling for US-led regime change in Venezuela," Olivier Knox, a senior political reporter for U.S. News & World Report, wrote in comment responding to Leavitt's.

In the piece, Machado characterized the Maduro government as hijacking the country by way of a regime-backed drug cartel, Cartel de los Soles. The Trump administration recently designated the group as a terrorist organization, though critics have pointed out that the term "Cartel de los Soles" does not refer to a specific, distinct organization, but it rather used as a catch-all term for corrupt government officials involved in drug trafficking.

She further accuses the Maduro government of "crimes against humanity and other grave atrocities," and of running Venezuela "the way mobsters control territory: through fear, torture and the systematic destruction of the nation’s democratic pillars."

She also praises Trump's actions against Maduro as "decisive action" and dismisses criticisms that military intervention would destabilize Venezuela.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of seeking to gain access to Venezuelan oil fields by deposing Maduro, not pursuing regime change to support democracy. Machado has also been criticized overall for her enthusiastic support of Trump, raising concerns the country would become overly deferential to him with her in power.

Although President Donald Trump has threatened to remove citizens and legal immigrants from the United States, Bloomberg reporter Erik Larson says he's likely to face significant legal challenges in court.

"The Trump administration has unveiled plans to remove legal immigrants from the US, including by canceling green cards and “denaturalizing” some US citizens, after an Afghan national who entered the country in 2021 was accused of shooting two members of the West Virginia National Guard," Larson explains.

Following the shooting, Trump took to Truth Social to say, "Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation."

And while presidents have "wide latitude over immigration," Larson writes, "experts say that at least some of Trump’s new initiatives are likely to face significant legal challenges in court."

The "reverse migration" Trump mentioned is a non-legal term to describe the "process by which immigrants in the US voluntarily leave the country," Larson explains.

But what Trump is proposing, he writes, "is different: steps to ramp up removals by stripping immigrants of their legal status or denying their applications to stay in the US, essentially forcing them to leave."

"In a pair of Nov. 27 Truth Social posts that disparaged immigrants, Trump said he would 'remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country,' without providing detail," Larson notes.

Joseph Edlow, the head of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, said that under Trump's orders, his agency was conducting “a full scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.”

"A June presidential proclamation lists 19 countries the US considers “deficient with regards to screening and vetting” of its citizens, including Afghanistan, Haiti and Somalia," Larson explains.

Trump also said on social media that he would terminate what he called “illegal admissions” into the US under President Joe Biden, end federal benefits for non-citizens, and “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries,” which is, writes Larsen, "an outdated term for developing nations."

Without providing any details, Trump also posted that he would"denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility."

Although the president has "broad say over who gets admitted to the country" per the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a power upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court, Larson says there are constitutional exceptions.

"Under the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, virtually all people in the US, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to due process, which has been interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to a fair trial to challenge a deportation order," he notes.

"Significant policy changes also must meet the requirements of the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates that the public have a chance to comment on major rule changes by the executive branch and that the changes can’t be implemented in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. It isn’t clear how Trump’s new policies would be implemented or what legal challenges if any might arise," he adds.

Under Trump's dubious proposals, Larson notes, "all types of legal status for immigrants and non-citizens appear to be at risk to some extent."

Immigration lawyer Michael Jarecki says they will also discourage "some immigrants from continuing their green card applications or otherwise attempting to remain in the US lawfully."

Millions of immigrants in the United States will get the message “that no one is in a stable immigration position, including naturalized US citizens," Jarecki says.

Larsen writes that although "naturalized US citizens can be stripped of their citizenship under certain established circumstances," "in each case, the Department of Homeland Security is required by law to conduct an investigation and refer the matter to the Justice Department."

The Justice Department, however, has had some problems in the past, Larsen notes.

"The Justice Department has admitted authorities made mistakes in several deportation cases, which could hinder future removal attempts," he adds.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Thursday insisted that the “best days are ahead of us,” just hours after a sharply critical report charged that some “House Republican women are in open revolt” against him.

Speaking from inside the U.S. Capitol, Johnson on Thursday told reporters, “steady at the wheel, everybody,” and, “it’s going to be fine. Our best days are ahead of us. Americans are going to be feeling a lot better in the early part of next year,” according to Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman.

“Speaker Mike Johnson is staring down a revolt from House Republican women,” NBC News reported, adding: “a number of high-profile Republican women are fleeing the House for other opportunities, weighing retirement or quitting Congress early, fueling some concern that GOP women’s ranks could be depleted in the next Congress.”

Politico this week described Johnson’s House of Representatives as “spinning out of control.”

Suggesting that House Republicans “can’t stand each other,” NOTUS added that “rank-and-file Republicans are increasingly frustrated with their leadership — and much of that frustration is spilling out into the open.”

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), whose resignation from Congress shocked the political sphere, told NOTUS, “My bills which reflect many of President Trump’s executive orders … just sit collecting dust. That’s how it is for most members of Congress’s bills, the Speaker never brings them to the floor for a vote.”

NBC News cited action taken by U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), filing a discharge petition on banning congressional stock trading, as an effort to “go around Johnson and force a floor vote.”

Publicly, Luna expressed that she is “frustrated” and “pissed” — while also calling Johnson “a good guy.”

Apart from Greene’s broadsides against Johnson, perhaps the most publicly extreme attack on Johnson has been from a member of his own leadership team.

“Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the chair of House Republican Leadership, not only signed on to Luna’s petition but also publicly unloaded on Johnson over an unrelated issue in the national defense bill, suggesting in a series of social media posts that Johnson lied about the matter,” NBC noted.

Stefanik’s feud with Johnson was so damaging that President Donald Trump on Tuesday night had to intervene.

“After a productive discussion I had last night with President Trump and Speaker Johnson, the provision requiring Congressional disclosure when the FBI opens counterintelligence investigations into presidential and federal candidates seeking office will be included in the IAA/NDAA bill on the floor,” Stefanik declared on Wednesday. “This is a significant legislative win delivered against the illegal weaponization of the deep state.”

Stefanik reportedly had threatened to tank the must-pass national defense bill.

Politico’s Jason Beeferman reported on Wednesday that Stefanik’s “victory (and sudden peace) in her public fight” with the House Speaker “comes after she told me last night that Johnson ‘has catastrophic, plummeting support among Republican voters.’”

Axios reported that “Stefanik’s stance sets up another test of Johnson’s ability to hold together his razor-thin majority.”

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), “has told people she is so frustrated” with Johnson, “and sick of the way he has run the House — particularly how women are treated there — that she is planning to huddle with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia next week to discuss following her lead and retiring early from Congress,” The New York Times reported. Mace, who is running for governor, adamantly denied she is considering retiring from Congress early.

According to NBC, two House Republican women “said that they feel they have been passed over for opportunities, that their priorities don’t always get taken as seriously under Johnson’s leadership and that they believe that could be driving some of the exits and public fights with him.”

“We aren’t taken seriously,” one of the women said. “You have women who are very accomplished, very successful, who have earned the merit, who aren’t given the time of the day.”

Back in 2019 — the year after he defeated Republican Steve Poizner in the race for California insurance commissioner — Democrat Ricardo Lara drew criticism when it was discovered that he was soliciting money from people he was regulating.

Lara, in response to the controversy, vowed, "I must hold myself to a higher standard. I can and will do better."

Now, in late 2025, Lara is facing another controversy. The Los Angeles Times' Paige St. John, in an article published on December 4, reports that the former California state senator is "under two new investigations for potential campaign finance and ethics violations" and is "accused by consumer advocates of cozying up to those he regulates."

"Lara has asked companies to make donations to favored charities, including those that have business before his agency, according to a Times investigation," St. John reports. "The investigation found Lara logged at least 32 trips to 23 countries and territories — spending over 163 days abroad on state time — but consistently failed to disclose who paid for the five-star hotels, premium airline seats and fine dining. California ethics laws mandate that elected officials like Lara disclose reimbursements for such travel to the State Ethics Commission and agency websites."

Lara, according to St. John, "says he followed all state ethics and campaign spending rules." The Los Angeles Times journalist notes, however, that "payment records for two-thirds of Lara's trips are unreported or incomplete."

"The Times filed multiple public records requests for the full records, but the Department of Insurance at first said it didn't have receipts for most of Lara's spending," St. John explains. "In late November, however, the department released 452 pages of airline bookings for Lara made by the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners, the powerful, industry-funded trade organization that creates model regulations for states to enact. The nonprofit association paid for Lara's first- and business-class travel expenses, including a $11,626 ticket to Singapore for a 2024 conference on Asian insurance issues. A $11,730 reservation to Nepal in January of this year was canceled after the L.A. fires."

The Times reporter continues, "State employees accompanying Lara on foreign trips flew economy, for a fraction of the cost as their boss, state expense records show. Those include a state-paid $2163 ticket to Tokyo in 2023 for a senior department official, while the NAIC put Lara in a $9517 premium seat."

Read Paige St. John's full article for the Los Angeles Times at this link (subscription required).

A handful of MAGA influencers spent Thanksgiving on a press junket to Qatar where they marveled in the Middle Eastern nation's wealth and modernity, remarking that it made America look third world, according to The Bulwark's Will Sommer.

"The Gulf Arab monarchy is on a clear campaign to charm Donald Trump and those around him, starting with the 'gift' of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet (supposedly to the Air Force, not Trump) in May, and extending to the building of new facilities at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho (which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth inaccurately reported as a Qatari military base)," Sommer notes.

"The latest Qatari charm tactic has less to do with aviation than with recreation for some B-list MAGA social media personalities," he adds.

Among that B-list: Emily Wilson (better known as “Emily Saves America”), Turning Point Action's Caitlin Sinclair, and podcaster Rob Smith, Sommer notes.

The influencers, he writes, "documented their visits to luxe Doha restaurants, a nightclub, the Formula 1 Qatar Grand Prix, and even an audience with Serena Williams. They posted videos of themselves walking the red carpet at the Formula 1 Paddock Club, where tickets can run into the mid-four figures."

They even had meetings with Qatari officials that, Sommer notes, "Smith robotically called ... mutually beneficial military and financial partnerships."

While Sommer says while it's not clear who paid for the trip, the influencers certainly didn't, and "the assumption that some Qatari group was behind their good times and Smith’s new pro-Qatar stance has roiled the right, with one Newsmax contributor calling it proof of a 'hostile subversion campaign.'"

So-called "MAGA Whisperer" and new member of the Pentagon press pool Laura Loomer "has been on a days-long meltdown over the trip, at one point declaring that she’d rather eat canned tuna and beans in her apartment than sell out to the Qatar lobby in such a way," Sommer writes.

Loomer criticized Smith, who is openly gay, for going to a country "where homosexual acts are outlawed."

Smith snapped back at Loomer, saying she was trying to get him killed by posting his sexuality online, Sommer notes.

"The influencers, by comparison, appear to have dined at Cipriani Doha, a place so fancy its online menu doesn’t even have prices," he adds.

Wilson has taken the most heat for the trip, Sommer reports, reminding of her involvement "as one part of the vicious influencer engagement ring drama earlier this year or for her stance that slavery should be legal on a state-by-state basis."

Wilson, who falls into the pro-Israel camp of MAGA influencers and took an "influencer trip" to Israel over the summer, was questioned by fellow conservative Seth Dillon, who asked, “Does Qatar pay better than Israel?”

“Guess Israel needs a non-compete clause!” cracked former InfoWars host Owen Shroyer, Sommer notes.

Wilson snapped back saying "it was cool to go to Qatar," and that she was a Formula 1 fan, Sommer reports.

She also found her foot in her mouth, Sommer says.

"Wilson used her trip to run down her comparatively clout-less homeland, the United States," he writes.

“Honestly it was amazing to finally feel safe and not be surrounded by homeless crackheads and criminals for once,” she wrote. “I could actually relax and enjoy myself.”

On her podcast, she praised Qatar for having “no black people on EBT going to Walmart to get fat” and “definitely no gay dudes rollerblading.”

“Wow, America’s like really third world compared to these places,” Wilson said.

Wilson also said she prefers Qatari Muslims to American.

"All the Muslims there are extremely smart, successful, and productive,” Wilson said on her podcast. “The ones [in the United States] and in the U.K. are the ones they don’t f——tolerate in their country, and they kick out — that’s why they suck and they’re pieces of s——.”

Sommer says these trips are increasingly common among MAGA influencers.

"As for Wilson, she appeared to offer a sort of list of potential junkets she’s interested in on her podcast, saying she’d also like to visit Japan and Russia. As someone once said, 'Russia, if you’re listening,'" he quips

Republican Party insiders have a precise date in mind for when more party members, sick of "daily humiliation," will finally break with President Donald Trump, according the Politico’s politics bureau chief Jonathan Martin.

Martin made an appearance on MS NOW's Morning Joe on Thursday, where he was pressed about the recent high-profile instances of Republicans in Washington abandoning the party or breaking with Trump on key issues. The well-connected bureau chief claimed to have spoken with a GOP senator who had a very specific time in mind for when many more Republicans might break rank with the president, and it all has to do with next year's all-important midterm elections.

“Quite frankly, I talked to a former GOP senator,” Martin said. “[They] said two words to me: filing deadlines."

"Why do filing deadlines matter?" he continued. "Because what the senator was talking about was the filing deadlines for primaries next year. Which is to say, when that clears, when that passes, when these lawmakers know who is or is not running against them in primaries next year, then you’ll see even more freedom, even more independence.”

Trump's most common response to members of his own party defying his will has been to suggest that somebody run against them in their next primary race, and offer to endorse someone who does so. Despite Trump's waning approval rating overall, his endorsements are still seen as extremely valuable in Republican primary races for things like the House and Senate. Before Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green announced her early resignation from the House, Trump had branded her a "traitor" for breaking with his stances and suggested somebody primary her.

Once the filing deadlines have passed, members of Congress will be able to gauge how much of a threat their challengers are and use that information to determine how much they can defy Trump. There would also not then be the possibility that Trump could back a new candidate against them if there is not already a serious challenger, at least not for 2026.

“These guys care about their seats and about their reelections,” Martin explained. “If they see that they don’t have a primary challenger by a date certain next year, 2026, they can start saying what they actually think about what [conservative commentator] George Will calls the ‘moral slum’ of this administration.”

Primary filing deadlines vary by state. In some places, like Arkansas and Illinois, the deadlines already passed last month. In others, like Delaware and Louisiana, the deadlines are as far-off as July.

Martin also touched on the frustrations Republicans in Washington are feeling about the laundry list of scandals coming out of the Trump administration, which many feel obligated to defend or downplay for the time being, the most notable currently being Pete Hegseth's boat strike debacle.

“I think it’s one more rock on the back of the members of Congress that they’re carrying up the hill,” Martin said. “The hill is Mount Trump, and the hill is having to burden this daily humiliation.”

Public reaction to a recent Christmas card greeting posted on the White House's official X account probably isn't what President Donald Trump was expecting.

A graphic of Trump giving his signature thumb's up along with the words "Daddy's Home," accompanies the White House's exuberant greeting of "HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS!" posted late Wednesday night.

The phrase "Daddy's home" has been adopted by Trump's supporters and used in official White House communications as a catchphrase and meme, particularly during the holiday season and following a NATO summit event in 2025.

But not everyone is embracing it, with many posting tweaked versions of the original showing, among other things, Trump sleeping and Vice President JD Vance on his lap dressed as an elf.

Daily Kos staff reporter Emily C. Singer shared it on X, saying, "This is so f—— weird."

Geopolitical commentator Marcus d'Osint posted, "I don't think this appropriate considering a bunch of evidence out of the Epstein files just dropped."

Retired pastor who goes by Dr. Mike on X used Elon Musk's AI tool Grok to construct his reply, saying, "GROK's ADVICE: 'IT Would NOT be ADVISABLE to ENTRUST YOUR DAUGHTER to TRUMP!' 'His comments about women, including inappropriate remarks about Ivanka, such as calling her a 'great piece of ass' & saying he 'might date her if she weren't his daughter', raise major concerns."

OTC trading platform Unich.com wondered, "Did the White House just drop a Christmas album cover?"

Over on Instagram, comments range from “soooo cringe" and “creepy” to “creep,” and “gag," while others wondered if that home meant "the nursing home?"

After President Donald Trump returned to the White House on January 20, his administration aggressively downsized a long list of federal government agencies with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its then-leader, Tesla/SpaceX/X.com head Elon Musk. Trump claimed that his goal was reducing "waste, fraud and abuse," but critics of the Trump Administration/DOGE cuts argued that they were robbing the agencies of crucial personnel they need in order to function properly — from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) to the National Weather Service (NWS) to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Another agency that has been suffering chaos during Trump's second presidency is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In an article published on December 4, Axios' Pete Sullivan describes the FDA departures that are contributing to instability at the agency.

"Another abrupt departure of a high-ranking Food and Drug Administration official is raising alarm about a brain drain that could mean new drugs take longer to reach the public," Sullivan reports. "Why it matters: Biotech and pharmaceutical companies rely on the FDA for dependable guidance as they spend huge sums developing new treatments. The American public needs the agency to ensure treatments are safe and effective…. Driving the news: The latest uproar surrounds the unexpected departure of Richard Pazdur, a respected oncologist who just three weeks ago became the fourth person to direct the FDA's drug center this year."

Sullivan adds, "Pazdur's appointment had helped calm nerves to some degree within industry after months of turmoil. But now, executives and even former FDA commissioners are publicly questioning the agency's direction."

One of the people who is sounding the alarm about the FDA is Biotechnology Innovation Organization CEO John Crowley.

Crowley told Axios, "This constant turmoil is undermining America's leadership in biotechnology, creating unprecedented regulatory instability and unpredictability, and risks ceding this critical sector to China."

According to Sullivan, "morale" has "plummeted" at the FDA.

A former FDA staffer, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Axios, "They don't talk to each other. They go to the bathroom, they come (back), they shut their door."

Read Peter Sullivan's full article for Axios is available at this link.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) "prefers secrecy to sunlight" when it comes to his probe of former counsel Jack Smith, writes MS NOW's Steve Benen.

House Republicans, led by Jordan, subpoenaed Smith for a closed-door deposition on December 17, 2025, as part of their oversight investigation into his probes into President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents.

Smith's lawyers have stated he volunteered to appear for an open, public hearing but will comply with the deposition request.

On Capitol Hill, GOP lawmakers remain eager to treat Smith like a "punching bag," Benen writes.

"Rep. Michael Rulli of Ohio recently accused the prosecutor of acts that he said bordered on 'treason[,]' Sen. Marsha Blackburn referred Smith to the Justice Department for a misconduct investigation, based on misguided allegations the Tennessee Republican did not appear to understand[,] and several GOP members have even pushed for Smith’s disbarment," he notes.

Jordan sent a letter to Smith to demand his closed-door testimony and NBC news reports that Smith’s lawyer Peter Koski said he's "disappointed ... Republicans rejected the Trump prosecutor’s offer to provide public testimony."

"Jack looks forward to meeting with the committee later this month to discuss his work and clarify the various misconceptions about his investigation," Koski tells NBC.

Benen says that "Smith clearly wanted more transparency, but he wasn’t in a position to dictate the terms."

The New York Times reported that House Republicans “have been reluctant to give [Smith] a prime public platform out of concern that he could embarrass Trump by making a compelling case for the indictments over the president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified documents.”

These concerns, Benen writes, "gave away the game," adding that "Smith is an experienced, credible and capable prosecutor who’s familiar with Trump’s criminal cases at a granular level."

"The more Republicans drag him back into the spotlight, the more Smith is positioned to remind the public not only of the variety of alleged presidential felonies, but also of evidence the party would prefer to forget," Benen says.

While Trump says he, too, would rather see Smith testify in public, Jordan isn't keen on it at all.

"Jordan will likely ignore the White House’s preference, even as the president probably ought to be careful what he wishes for," he concludes.

In MAGA media outlets, the Trump Administration's Venezuela policy is repeatedly defended as a willingness to put American interests above "wokeness" — including a series of military strikes against Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean that U.S. President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claim were being used to smuggle illegal drugs to the United States.

Hegseth insists that his priority is defending the U.S., not being "woke." But in a biting column published on December 4, the New York Times' David French counters that there is nothing "woke" about obeying the "rules of war" that the Pentagon has adhered to over the years.

"In their military campaign in South America," the Never Trump conservative explains, "Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth aren't just defying the Constitution and breaking the law. They are attacking the very character and identity of the American military.

French points to the July 2023 update of the Department of Defense Law of War Manual, which states that "orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal" and that "it is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given."

"A no quarter order is an order directing soldiers to kill every combatant, including prisoners, the sick and the wounded," French notes.

On September 2, two strikes were carried out against a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean. The second strike, according to French, was illegal under Pentagon policy because: (1) the people on board the boat had been rendered shipwrecked by the first strike, and (2) targeting the two survivors for a second attack was a "no quarter" violation.

"There are now good reasons to believe that the United States military, under the command of President Trump and Hegseth, his secretary of defense, has blatantly violated the laws of war," Hegseth warns. "On November 28, the Washington Post reported that Hegseth issued a verbal order to 'kill everybody' the day that the United States launched its military campaign against suspected drug traffickers. According to the Post, the first strike on the targeted speedboat left two people alive in the water."

French continues, "The commander of the operation then ordered a second strike to kill the shipwrecked survivors, apparently — according to The Post — 'because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.' If that reporting is correct, then we have clear evidence of unequivocal war crimes — a no quarter order and a strike on the incapacitated crew of a burning boat."

The Never Trump conservative stresses that obeying the "rules of war" is vital to the U.S. Armed Forces' wellbeing.

"The laws of war aren't woke," French writes. "They're not virtue signaling. And they're not a sign that the West has forgotten how to fight. Instead, they provide the American military with a number of concrete benefits. First, complying with the laws of war can provide a battlefield advantage…. Second, the laws of war make war less savage and true peace possible."

David French's full New York Times column is available at this link.