SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
For the anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot that almost toppled democracy (more quickly than now), the hacks and crackpots in power have concocted a deranged revisionist history of such "evil," "pathological," "Stalin-level propaganda" it's somehow dragged us even further through the looking glass. In its telling, "orderly patriots" marched to the Capitol, Democrats who "masterfully reversed reality" "staged the real rebellion," and Trump "triumphed over tyranny." Up is down. What the fuck. Orwell lives.
A few days ago, Robert Reich described the Jan. 6 insurrection as "the most shameful day in American history." Then he wisely upped the ante to draw a direct line from that crime to all the rest, including his capture of Maduro, arguing they're all based on the same disturbing premise: "The hubris of omnipotence." Many have made the same connection, calling Jan. 6 a stark "fork in the road" whose moral implications - supremacy of political loyalty over the rule of law - poisoned all that followed. It became "a riot that never ended," a turning point that was not "the final, violent death spasms of the cult of Trump" as we thought but "the dawn of Trump’s total liberation." Today, amidst all the gaslighting, denial, lies, the ongoing, well-fed hubris, we pay the price.
A few weeks ago, former special counsel Jack Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, testifying that his team had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power." We all know Trump should be behind bars. Tragically, he isn't, because he inexplicably weaseled his way into getting elected, a complicit, lawless SCOTUS gave him an unconscionable lifeline, Merrick Garland was a dud, Biden got old, and Smith was forced to drop the case. Since then, Trump has blasted ahead with his revenge tour, his toadies have gutted the DOJ, the far-right, fueled by Charlie Kirk's death, has soared, and truth has lost at every mournful turn.
And so to Trump's "day of love” as framed by a demented J6 website, widely deemed "disgusting lies," "an absolute disgrace," and "a despicable, shameful distortion of reality by a lawless, rogue White House." With a stark black and white banner portraying a supposed gallery of villains composed of - surprise! - Democrats, along with traitorous Cheney and Kinzinger, it opens with the florid claim, "President Trump took decisive action to pardon January 6 defendants who were unfairly targeted, overcharged, and used as political examples... They were punished to cover incompetence." It boasts Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned nearly 1,600 "patriotic Americans...treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ" for "exercising their First Amendment rights."
Blasting Nancy Pelosi for creating "a scripted TV spectacle to fabricate an 'insurrection' narrative and pin blame on President Trump" and flaunting contextless quotes - "We have totally failed" - it claims Pelosi "repeatedly" acknowledged responsibility for “catastrophic security failures" after refusing Trump's gracious offer of 10,000 National Guard troops for protection (not, all of it). Thus did wily Dems reverse reality: "In truth it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters. This gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract from their own role in undermining democracy.”
Then, a timeline of fictional events: Trump "invites patriotic Americans" to DC for "a peaceful and historic protest against certifying the stolen 2020 election." He "speaks to hundreds of thousands of supporters." The crowd "responds with massive enthusiasm." The march "is orderly and spirited." Capitol Police "fire tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions, deliberately escalating tensions." The "stolen election is certified" despite "hidden suitcases of ballots," also "exploding water pipes"? Trump is "silenced," "weaponized prosecutions," "FBI entrapment," "fabricated indictments," "rigged show trials," "Trump prevails despite relentless Deep State efforts to imprison, bankrupt, and assassinate him," and of course "God’s unmistakable grace." Whew.
The triumphant finale: Trump "corrected a historic wrong - freeing Americans who were unjustly punished in one of the darkest wrongs in modern American history" - reportedly, when faced with the task, saying fuck it and giving all 1,600, even the most vile, a free ride 'cause he was too lazy to go through each case. He pardoned "patriotic citizens viciously overcharged, denied due process and held as political hostages by a vengeful regime." Those victims of "merciless persecution (for) the simple act of peacefully walking through the Capitol" were "finally freed from years of cruel imprisonment" as he "ended the nightmare of weaponized justice and delivered long-overdue vindication to those betrayed by those leaders sworn to protect them."
Speaking of: Since then, Republicans have spinelessly toed the line. To date, unholy Mike Johnson's even refused to install a legally mandated plaque at the US Capitol honoring the brave and still damaged souls in law enforcement who tried to stop the mayhem; challenged, he argues the plaque is "not implementable" as written, and that alternatives offered by Democrats "do not comply with the statute." On Tuesday's anniversary, dozens of Dem lawmakers held a forum to recount their experiences of the traumatic event and honor those who fought to protect them and uphold the law; they gathered in the basement where many had hidden that day after the Speaker's office declined their requests for a hearing room or larger auditorium upstairs.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Also on Tuesday, a twisted, ragtag "family reunion" of several dozen rioters came to D.C. to march again, ostensibly to commemorate Ashli Babbitt, who was killed as she tried to breach the Capitol; the administration paid $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit with her family. The pardoned rioters, many of whom are similarly seeking millions in damages, marched draped in MAGA gear. "This is about redemption," said one. "This is the life force of MAGA." Some tangled with a handful of counter-protesters - "Eat Shit Donald Trump" - and a small fight began when one thug tried to seize the bullhorn from a protester’s hands. She was handcuffed by the police. Color us shocked.
Since Trump's sweeping pardons, even of the worst of the worst, at least 33 rioters have been re-arrested for other crimes. The charges include plotting the murder of FBI agents who investigated Jan. 6 cases, and violent assault - punched a woman in the throat, stomped on a man’s chest at a bar. Three have been arrested for rape, and six have been charged with child-sex crimes, including child rape and child pornography, because only the best. After a five-year manhunt, the DOJ also just indicted the guy accused of planting pipe bombs outside DNC and RNC headquarters the night before Jan. 6, 2021; he's detained pending trial, but oops - it turns out the stable genius may have already pardoned him.
Others pop up in a sordid "Where Are They Now" round-up. Former Proud Boys leader and self-proclaimed “Western chauvinist" Enrique Tarrio, who formed a militia-like Ministry of Self-Defense unit,” got a 22-year-sentence, with terrorism charges included, before being pardoned. He joined Tuesday's march; before that, he was last seen getting charged with another assault, but feds declined to prosecute him. Jan. 6 shaman Jacob Chansley last made the news when he filed an unhinged $40 trillion lawsuit against Trump, declaring himself "the first legal President of the New Constitutional Republic of the United States." In that capacity, he ordered the printing of a $40 trillion coin, and gave himself $1 trillion "for my years worth of pain and suffering."
Of other Jan. 6 heroes, one was arrested on a felony charge after his off-leash dogs viciously attacked multiple people, sending four to the hospital. One was arrested for driving a van loaded with weapons near Barack Obama's home; he also livestreamed threats against Jamie Raskin, threatened to blow up a federal building, and was convicted on a weapons and hoax bomb threat charge. One was arrested for making a “terroristic threat" against Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. One, Jared Wise - "Kill ‘em! Kill ‘em!” - works at the DOJ under Ed Martin, who represented Jan. 6 defendants. And one, the Instigator-In-Chief, just overthrew the president of Venezuela in violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, among many other crimes. He has yet to serve any time; somehow, horrifyingly, he is still babbling in public.
Despite the attempts at revisionist history, "Americans remember that day for a simple reason – we watched it happen." - Gregory Rosen, former DOJ prosecutor of Jan. 6 defendants.
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
President Donald Trump in recent months has made ludicrously false claims about his administration slashing prescription drug prices in the US by as much as 600%, which would entail pharmaceutical companies paying people to use their products.
In reality, reported Reuters on Wednesday, drugmakers are planning to raise prices on hundreds of drugs in 2026.
Citing data from healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors, Reuters wrote that at least 350 branded medications are set for price hikes next year, including "vaccines against COVID, RSV, and shingles," as well as the "blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance."
The total projected number of drugs seeing price increases next year is significantly higher than in 2025, when 3 Axis Advisors estimated that pharmaceutical companies raised prices on 250 medications.
The median price increase for drugs next year is projected at 4%, roughly the same as in 2025.
Reuters also found that some of the companies raising prices on their drugs are the same ones who struck deals with Trump to lower the costs of a limited number of prescriptions earlier this year, including Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK.
In announcing the deals with the pharmaceutical companies, Trump declared that "starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast and furious and will soon be the lowest in the developed world."
But Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told Reuters that the projected savings for Americans under the Trump deals are a drop in the bucket compared with the continued price hikes on other drugs.
"These deals are being announced as transformative when, in fact, they really just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the US," Rome explained.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, a patient advocacy organization focused exclusively on lowering the cost of medications, also said she was unimpressed by Trump's deals with drugmakers.
"Voluntary agreements with drug companies—especially when key details remain undisclosed—are no substitute for durable, system-wide reforms," she said earlier this month. "Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices, because drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them."
The enhanced subsidies for people who buy their health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act have officially expired, and Democratic lawmakers are ready to make sure voters know whom to blame going into the midterm elections.
Politico reported Friday that while Democrats in Congress are still pushing their Republican colleagues to allow a vote on renewing the enhanced subsidies, they have mostly settled on a political strategy of going scorched-earth on the GOP for letting them expire in the first place.
Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) told Politico that Americans who see their monthly premiums skyrocket in the wake of the subsidies' expiration will take out their anger on the GOP.
"I think the public’s angry," Bera said. "So I think they will blame the party in charge."
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) emphasized that the huge spikes Americans will see in their monthly premiums will help Democrats make the case that President Donald Trump and Republicans have failed to tackle the affordability crisis in the US.
“It’s part of the top issue, which is cost of living—whether it’s groceries, gas, housing, energy costs,” said Deluzio. “Healthcare seems to be top of mind as something that Congress can actually do to bring down the costs."
In a Friday social media post, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) also piled on and hammered the GOP for inaction on healthcare.
"Healthcare is a human right, not a bargaining chip," he wrote. "Republican politicians who cut healthcare to pay for more billionaire tax cuts, or to increase profits for their corporate donors, are selling out working families."
And its not just Democrats raising alarms about the expired subsidies, as Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in an interview with BBC that was "pissed for the American people" about his party not holding a vote on renewing them.
"Everybody has a responsibility to serve their district, to their constituents," said Lawler. "You know what is funny? Three-quarters of people on Obamacare are in states Donald Trump won."
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released both the transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith's December 17 testimony about his criminal cases against President Donald Trump that were shut down last year after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
The release, which occurred as millions of Americans were preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve, revealed fresh insights into Smith's investigation and prosecution of the president, who had been indicted on charges related to the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents and his bid to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Among other things, Smith testified that he believed that Trump's false claims about fraud in the 2020 election were not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution because they were aimed at disrupting the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the US Capitol building and send lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith emphasized. "As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use... knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function."
Smith also testified that he and his team sought gag orders against Trump because the then-former president "was making statements that were endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff."
Smith also said that he would "make no apologies" for requesting a gag order against Trump.
When asked about his decision to subpoena phone records of US senators during his investigation, Smith laid out why Trump had left him with no other option.
"I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump," he said. "These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them... that lies with Donald Trump."
Commenting on the timing of the release, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called it "an obvious attempt" by House Republicans to "bury" the information that Smith delivered during his testimony.
A spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday demanded the immediate release of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from US custody and condemned the Trump administration's trampling of international law.
"The US disregards President Maduro’s status as head of state, blatantly prosecutes him, and puts him on a so-called 'trial' in a domestic court," Lin Jian wrote in a social media post. "This seriously violates Venezuela’s national sovereignty and destabilizes international relations."
"No country should put its domestic rules above international law," Lin added. "China calls on the US to release President Maduro and his wife at once and ensure their personal safety."
The U.S. disregards President Maduro’s status as head of state, blatantly prosecutes him and puts him on a so-called “trial” in a domestic court. This seriously violates Venezuela’s national sovereignty and destabilizes international relations.
No country should put its… pic.twitter.com/v1xQqE4Cqo
— Lin Jian 林剑 (@SpoxCHN_LinJian) January 6, 2026
The Chinese official's remarks came a day after Maduro said Monday during his first appearance before a federal court in New York City that he is "still president" of Venezuela—a sentiment echoed by the country's interim leader—and considers himself a "prisoner of war." Maduro pleaded not guilty to narcoterrorism conspiracy and other charges pursued by the Trump Justice Department.
During a press conference on Monday, Lin called the US abduction of Maduro a "clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter," expressing a view widely held by legal experts.
"China calls on the US to ensure the personal safety of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, release them at once, stop toppling the government of Venezuela, and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation," said Lin.
Under international law, sitting heads of state are immune from prosecution in other countries' courts. The Trump administration argues Maduro's leadership was illegitimate. But President Donald Trump, in his social media post announcing the weekend attack on Venezuela, described Maduro as president of the South American country.
"If the Justice Department plans to argue that Nicolás Maduro is not protected by head of state immunity," asked Francisco Rodríguez, a senior fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "then why did President Trump announce his capture referring to him as 'President Maduro'—a designation that the US government had stopped using in 2019?"
An unsealed US indictment against Maduro characterizes him as "previously the president of Venezuela."
Chimène Keitner, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, wrote Tuesday that the Trump administration "appears to feel that its military and economic superiority allow it to act unilaterally in violation of international law, and that cooperation and alliances are overrated."
"That might seem appealing in the short term, but the world has already seen where unchecked expansionism and claimed spheres of influence lead," wrote Keitner. "The benefits of following agreed-upon rules have often been recognized only after significant harm caused by their disregard."
If the proposed tax is enacted, Huang would face a roughly $8 billion tax bill—a tiny fraction of his $165 billion net worth.
Jensen Huang, CEO of the tech behemoth Nvidia and the eighth-richest man in the world, said Tuesday that he is "perfectly fine" with a grassroots push in California to impose a one-time wealth tax on the state's billionaire residents.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Huang said that "we chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes, I guess, they would like to apply, so be it"—a nonchalant response that diverges from the hysteria expressed by other members of his class in response to the proposed ballot initiative.
"It never crossed my mind once," Huang said of the tax proposal.
If the proposed 5% levy on billionaire wealth makes it onto the November ballot and California voters approve it, Huang would face an estimated $8 billion tax bill—a tiny slice of his $165 billion net worth. Those subject to the tax would have the option of paying the full amount owed all at once or over a period of five years.
"'Who cares' is absolutely the appropriate reaction," said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank. "It means nothing to him. David Sacks types look like the biggest babies in the world."
Bruenig was referring to the White House cryptocurrency czar who left California for Texas at the end of 2025 in an apparent effort to avoid the possible billionaire tax, which would apply to anyone living in California as of January 1, 2026.
“As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital,” Sacks declared in a social media post last week.
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created."
The proposed one-time tax on California's roughly 200 billionaires would raise an estimated $100 billion in revenue, funds that would be set aside for the state's healthcare system, food assistance, and education.
Organizers are pursuing the tax in direct response to unprecedented Medicaid cuts enacted by US President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress over the summer.
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and the lead sponsor of the ballot initiative, welcomed Huang's response to the proposed tax in a statement late Tuesday.
"We agree with Jensen Huang that California has a tremendous talent pool of workers uniquely qualified to continue moving many industries forward, including within the tech sector and beyond," said Jimenez. "This initiative will ensure the $100 billion healthcare funding crisis created by [the Trump-GOP legislation] in July is fixed, so that all of those workers can access emergency rooms and vital healthcare in California."
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created last July—and that California will unite to solve this November," Jimenez added.
"That is a confrontation of Cold War proportions," warned one observer.
Update:
US forces have now boarded and seized control of the Russian-flagged oil vessel in the North Atlantic, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
Earlier:
United States military forces on Wednesday attempted to board and seize control of a Venezuela-linked and Russian-flagged oil tanker after a weekslong pursuit across the Atlantic, sparking fears of a broader conflict stemming from US President Donald Trump's assault on the South American country.
Reuters reported that the US Coast Guard and military are leading the takeover operation, which came "after the tanker, originally known as the Bella-1, slipped through a US maritime 'blockade' of sanctioned tankers and rebuffed US Coast Guard efforts to board it." According to the Wall Street Journal, "Helicopters and at least one Coast Guard vessel were being used to take control of the tanker."
The vessel is reportedly being escorted by a Russian submarine, fueling concerns of a direct confrontation between two nuclear powers.
Video footage published Tuesday by RT purports to show US forces pursuing the tanker, whose name was recently changed to the Marinera.
BREAKING WORLD EXCLUSIVE: RT obtains FIRST footage of Russian-flagged civilian Marinera tanker being CHASED by US Coast Guard warship in the North Atlantic https://t.co/sNbqJkm5O5 pic.twitter.com/XtbBML3a6j
— RT (@RT_com) January 6, 2026
The New York Times reported that US forces first stopped the tanker in the Caribbean on December 21.
According to the Times:
The ship, which started its journey in Iran, had been on its way to pick up oil in Venezuela.
At the time, the United States said it had a seizure warrant on the vessel because it was not flying a valid national flag. But the Bella 1 refused to be boarded and sailed into the Atlantic, with the United States in pursuit.
Then came a series of moves to ward off the United States. The fleeing crew painted a Russian flag on the hull, the tanker was renamed and added to an official Russian ship database, and Russia made a formal diplomatic request that the United States stop its chase.
Observers voiced alarm over the tense and fast-moving situation.
"Don’t wish to be hyperbolic, but if—if—US special forces are intercepting and seeking to board a now Russian-flagged tanker, apparently with submarine escort, then that is a confrontation of Cold War proportions," warned British journalist Jon Sopel.
"Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action in Greenland just to soothe the ego of a power-hungry wannabe dictator."
As leaders in Europe respond to once-unimaginable threats by the United States to take territory from a NATO ally, one US senator on Monday proposed legislation banning funding for any Trump administration military action against Greenland.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put forth an amendment to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill "to prohibit the use of funds for military force, the conduct of hostilities, or the preparation for war against or with respect to Greenland," a self-governing territory of Denmark.
“Families are getting crushed by rising grocery and housing costs, inflation is up, and [President Donald] Trump’s name is all over the Epstein files," Gallego said in a statement. "Instead of doing anything to fix those problems, Trump is trying to distract people by threatening to start wars and invade countries—first in Venezuela, and now against our NATO ally Denmark."
“What’s happening in Venezuela shows us that we can’t just ignore Trump’s reckless threats," Gallego added. "His dangerous behavior puts American lives and our global credibility at risk. I’m introducing this amendment to make it clear that Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action, and to force Republicans to choose whether they’re going to finally stand up or keep enabling Trump’s chaos.”
"This is not more complicated than the fact that Trump wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong. The US military is not a toy," Gallego—a former Marine Corps infantryman—said on social media.
The illegal US invasion and bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife—which came amid a high-seas airstrike campaign against alleged drug traffickers—spooked many Greenlanders, Danes, and Europeans, who say they have no choice but to take Trump's threats seriously.
“Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Monday on social media. “That is not how you speak to a people who have shown responsibility, stability, and loyalty time and again. Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned during a Monday television interview that "if the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop—that includes NATO, and therefore the post-Second World War security."
Other European leaders have also rallied behind Greenland amid the mounting US threat.
"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the leaders of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain asserted in a statement also backed by the Netherlands and Canada—which Trump has said he wants to make the "51st state."
The White House said Tuesday that Trump and members of his national security team are weighing a “range of options” to acquire Greenland, and that military action is “always an option” for seizing the mineral-rich and strategic island.
This, after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller brushed off criticism of a social media post by his wife, who posted an image showing a map of Greenland covered in the American flag with the caption, "SOON."
"You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else," Miller told CNN on Monday. "But we live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power."
No war powers resolution has ever succeeded in stopping a US president from proceeding with military action, including one introduced last month by Gallego in a bid to stop the boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has also unsuccessfully tried to get war powers resolutions passed, implied Tuesday that more measures aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Greenland may be forthcoming.
“He has repeatedly raised Greenland, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia. He’s waged military action within Nigeria,” Kaine said of Trump, who has bombed more countries than any president in history. “So I think members of the Senate should go on the record about all of it.”
In Greenland, only a handful of the island's 57,000 inhabitants want to join the United States. More than 8 in 10 favor independence amid often strained relations with their masters in Copenhagen and the legacy of a colonial history rife with abuses. Greenlanders enjoy a Nordic-style social welfare system that features universal healthcare; free higher education; and income, family, and employment benefits and protections unimaginable in today's United States.
Pro-independence figures say like-minded people must use the specter of a US takeover to wring concessions from Denmark.
"I am more nervous that we are potentially in a situation where only Denmark's wishes are taken into account and that we have not even been clarified about what we want," Aki-Matilda Tilia Ditte Høegh-Dam, a member of the pro-independence Naleraq party in Greenland's Inatsisartut, or Parliament, told Sermitsiaq on Tuesday.
"I'm in the Folketinget [Danish Parliament] right now, and I see that the Danish government is constantly making agreements with the United States," she added. "It’s not that they ask Greenland first."
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was among observers who noted Tuesday that any US invasion of Greenland would oblige other NATO members to defend the island under the North Atlantic Treaty's collective defense requirement.
“That’s what Article 5 says. Article 5 did not anticipate that the invading country would be a member of NATO,” Murphy told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We’re laughing, but this is not actually something to laugh about now because I think he’s increasingly serious.”