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."
Leading US medical groups were among the critics who forcefully condemned the Trump administration's Monday overhaul of federal vaccine recommendations for every child in the country.
Doctors and public health advocates have been warning of such changes since the US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nearly a year ago.
Last month, in a presidential memorandum, Trump directed Kennedy and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O'Neill, who is also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "to review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations."
HHS said in a Monday statement that "after consulting with health ministries of peer nations, considering the assessment's findings, and reviewing the decision memo" presented by National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, O'Neill "formally accepted the recommendations and directed the CDC to move forward with implementation."
O'Neill claimed that "the data support a more focused schedule" and the HHS secretary said that "after an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent," but leading experts pushed back against their framing.
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision."
Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, an American Medical Association trustee, said in a statement that the AMA "is deeply concerned by recent changes to the childhood immunization schedule that affects the health and safety of millions of children. Vaccination policy has long been guided by a rigorous, transparent scientific process grounded in decades of evidence showing that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving."
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision," she continued. "When long-standing recommendations are altered without a robust, evidence-based process, it undermines public trust and puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease."
"The scientific evidence remains unchanged, and the AMA supports continued access to childhood immunizations recommended by national medical specialty societies," the doctor added. "We urge federal health leaders to recommit to a transparent, evidence-based process that puts children's health and safety first and reflects the realities of our nation's disease burden."
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) President Dr. Andrew D. Racine was similarly critical of the "dangerous and unnecessary" move, stressing that "the long-standing, evidence-based approach that has guided the US immunization review and recommendation process remains the best way to keep children healthy and protect against health complications and hospitalizations."
As Racine explained:
Said to be modeled in part after Denmark's approach, the new recommendations issued today by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer recommend routine immunization for many diseases with known impacts on America's children, such as hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, and meningococcal disease. AAP continues to recommend that children be immunized against these diseases, and for good reason; thanks to widespread childhood immunizations, the United States has fewer pediatric hospitalizations and fewer children facing serious health challenges than we would without this community protection.
The United States is not Denmark, and there is no reason to impose the Danish immunization schedule on America's families. America is a unique country, and Denmark's population, public health infrastructure, and disease-risk differ greatly from our own.
At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations. This is no way to make our country healthier.
The doctor urged parents who "have questions about vaccines or anything else" to speak with their pediatricians and pledged that the AAP "will continue to stand up for children, just as we have done for the past 95 years."
Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Health Research Group director at the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, also slammed Kennedy and his deputies for starting out "2026 by escalating and accelerating their mindless assault on the childhood and adolescent immunization schedule."
"Extreme and arbitrary changes to the childhood vaccination schedule without full public discussion and scientific and evidence-based vetting put children and families at risk and undermine public health," Steinbrook said. "The uncalled-for changes are likely to further erode trust in vaccines and decrease immunization rates, rather than increase confidence or boost vaccine uptake, as federal health officials assert. Once again, medical professional societies and states must act to prevent suffering and death from preventable diseases."
As the Associated Press noted Monday: "States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration's guidance on vaccines."
Lawrence Gostin, founding chair of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University, predicted that "red states will mostly follow HHS guidance. Blue states will certainly keep the current schedule. We'll see a checkerboard of different rules across America. Infectious diseases will surge as pathogens don't respect state borders."
Ripping the CDC's move as "reckless and lawless," Gostin added that "RFK Jr. is plunging the nation into uncertainty and confusion. Will pharmacies and pediatricians offer vaccines without clear recommendations? Will insurers cover vaccines? Will school boards worry about liability? Needless hospitalizations and deaths are all but certain to occur."
Elon Musk is facing calls for legal ramifications after Grok, the AI chatbot used on his X social media platform, produced sexually suggestive images of children.
Politico reported on Friday that the Paris prosecutor's office in France is opening an investigation into X after Grok, following prompts from users, created deepfake photographs of both adult women and underage girls that removed their clothes and replaced them with bikinis.
Politico added that the investigation into X over the images will "bolster" an ongoing investigation launched by French prosecutors last year into Grok's dissemination of Holocaust denial propaganda.
France is not the only government putting pressure on Musk, as TechCrunch reported on Friday that India's information technology ministry has given X 72 hours to restrict users' ability to generate content deemed "obscene, pornographic, vulgar, indecent, sexually explicit, pedophilic, or otherwise prohibited under law."
Failure to comply with this order, the ministry warned, could lead to the government ending X's legal immunity from being sued over user-generated content.
In an interview with Indian cable news network CNBC TV18, cybersecurity expert Ritesh Bhatia argued that legal liability for the images generated by Grok should not just lie with the users whose prompts generated them, but with the creators of the chatbot itself.
"When a platform like Grok even allows such prompts to be executed, the responsibility squarely lies with the intermediary," said Bhatia. "Technology is not neutral when it follows harmful commands. If a system can be instructed to violate dignity, the failure is not human behavior alone—it is design, governance, and ethical neglect. Creators of Grok need to take immediate action."
Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, argued on Bluesky that it was "unprecedented" for a digital platform to give "users a tool to actively create" child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
"There are no other instances of a major company affirmatively facilitating the production of child pornography," Yung emphasized. "Treating this as the inevitable result of generative AI and social media is a harrowing mistake."
Andy Craig, a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, said that US states should use their powers to investigate X over Grok's generation of CSAM, given that it is unlikely the federal government under President Donald Trump will do so.
"Every state has its equivalent laws about this stuff," Craig explained. "Musk is not cloaked in some federal immunity just because he's off-again/on-again buddies with Trump."
Grok first gained the ability to generate sexual content this past summer when Musk introduced a new "spicy mode" for the chatbot that was immediately used to generate deepfake nude photos of celebrities.
Weeks before this, Grok began calling itself "MechaHitler" after Musk ordered his team to make tweaks to the chatbot to make it more "politically incorrect."
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.
"No state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered under the jurisdiction of other states," said the Russian Transport Ministry
Russian officials on Wednesday condemned the US military's seizure of a Venezuela-linked, Russia-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic as a brazen violation of international law.
One Russian lawmaker, Andrei Klishas, said in response to the US military's takeover of the oil tanker Marinera that the Trump administration "has engaged in outright piracy on the high seas." Klishas noted that the operation followed "a 'law enforcement operation' that killed several dozen people in Venezuela."
Russia’s Ministry of Transport said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that it lost contact with the oil vessel, which the US Coast Guard had been pursuing for weeks. Russia sent a submarine to escort the ship, which was reportedly en route to Venezuela to pick up oil.
"In accordance with the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are governed by the principle of freedom of navigation, and no state has the right to use force against vessels duly registered under the jurisdiction of other states," said the Russian Transport Ministry. (The US has not ratified the 1982 treaty.)
Citing unnamed US officials, Reuters reported that "Russian military vessels, including a submarine, were in the general vicinity" of the Marinera when US forces boarded and took it over on Wednesday. The Marinera was reportedly not carrying any cargo when US forces seized it.
"There were no indications of any confrontation between US and Russian military forces," the outlet added.
The Marinera was one of two tankers seized by US forces in international waters on Wednesday as the Trump administration looks to exert total control over Venezuela's oil industry. The other vessel, the M/T Sophia, was reportedly carrying around 2 million barrels of Venezuelan crude.
Unclassified footage posted to social media by the US Southern Command—and overlaid with dramatic music—shows American forces descending from a helicopter and boarding the M/T Sophia:
In a pre-dawn action this morning, the Department of War, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, apprehended a stateless, sanctioned dark fleet motor tanker without incident.
The interdicted vessel, M/T Sophia, was operating in international waters and… pic.twitter.com/JQm9gHprPk
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) January 7, 2026
"This is America first at sea," US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared.
“If you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation," said one progressive congressman.
As Donald Trump blows by Barack Obama's record for most countries bombed by a US president, progressive observers are fuming over Democratic leadership's inaction in response to the abduction of Venezuela's president and other illegal acts of war.
Congressional Democrats' reaction to Trump's brazen bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro—who faces dubious narco-terrorism charges in the US—ranged from open praise by members of the party's conservative wing like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), to fierce condemnation by Congressional Progressive Caucus Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other anti-war leftists including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
However, numerous observers have noted that, as Chris Lehmann wrote Tuesday for the Nation, senior Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, "are doing what they do best on Venezuela: Nothing."
Trump "staged an illegal coup," Lehmann argued. "Chuck Schumer's response? Empty words and meaningless parliamentary maneuvers."
Schumer did co-sponsor a war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from using military force in or against Venezuela. However, like every other resolution ever introduced in a bid to force presidential compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act, it failed to muster enough votes to pass. Trump has now ordered attacks on 10 countries, compared with seven bombed under Obama and at least six under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
"The central complaint from Democratic leaders has been that the Trump White House didn’t properly consult Congress in advance of its crime spree. And even that grievance rings hollow," Lehmann said. "Thus far, Democrats have shown no inclination to pursue an impeachment resolution against the president—the clear constitutional remedy for such abuses—even as a growing chorus of lawmakers are calling for it, together with leaders of the party’s activist base."
"Sadly," he continued, "the party’s inert approach to illegitimate acts of war well predates Trump’s Venezuela rampage; leading Democrats sat on their hands while their own president backed a genocidal war in Gaza—a lockstep posture of complicity so deeply ingrained that the Democratic National Committee refused to let any Palestinian speaker take the stage at the party’s 2024 convention."
"Democrats likewise enthusiastically hailed Barack Obama’s raid in Pakistan to kidnap and execute Osama bin Laden with little thought that it would serve as a precedent for later imperial errands like Maduro’s ouster," Lehmann added.
Truthdig contributor Conor Lynch on Monday noted the stark contrast between the Democratic Party's left wing and its leadership in response to Trump's aggression, highlighting a warning from Graham Platner, a military veteran and progressive US Senate candidate from Maine, about politicians “on both sides of the aisle trying to convince us all that somehow this was justified.”
Lynch wrote that "more than two decades and countless deaths later, the party that led the US into disastrous quagmires in the Middle East is intent on leading the country into yet another war."
While there are more anti-war Democratic voices in Congress than there have been since the Vietnam War era, many senior Democrats in both chambers have a history of approving wars. Every current Democratic lawmaker who was in office in 2001 voted to authorize the so-called War on Terror, while Schumer, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and several House Democrats still in office assented the following year to the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"Most Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq," Lynch continued. "This was partly due to the initial public support for the war and the George W. Bush administration’s fabricated intelligence about [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s 'weapons of mass destruction' (much like the Trump administration’s fabricated claims about the Venezuelan government’s support for 'narco-terrorism')."
"Today there is no excuse for Democrats to stand by as another Republican president—this one historically unpopular—launches an illegal invasion in our own backyard," Lynch asserted. "Indeed, it is not only morally correct but politically smart to oppose the illegal attack on Venezuela, as there is little appetite for another regime change crusade among the American public."
"If there was ever a time for Democrats to grow a spine, it’s now," Lynch added. He pointed to Rep. Ro Khanna's (Calif.) declaration on Saturday that "if you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation.'"
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) issued a similar call Sunday, urging members of Congress "to reject the shameful bipartisan complicity in this campaign of escalating aggression, and to replace it with a sound, sensible foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, human rights, and the self‑determination of all people, including the Venezuelan people."
"This is not foreign policy," PDA said of Trump's aggression. "This is militarized authoritarianism. We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to inflame the entire region, if not the entire globe in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict. We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Rep. Ilhan Omar demanded that ICE agents "stop terrorizing our communities."
This a developing story... Please check back for possible updates... WARNING: This post includes graphic footage of the shooting which some people may find disturbing...
Residents of Minneapolis reacted with fury on Wednesday after a woman was shot and killed by a federal immigration agent.
Emily Heller, a Minneapolis resident who witnessed the shooting, told Minnesota Public Radio that she saw a federal agent confronting a woman who was sitting in her car and telling her to leave the area during an immigration enforcement operation in the neighborhood.
"She was trying to turn around, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in," Heller told MPR. "And he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face like three, four times."
The identity of the woman shot by the agent has not yet been released, but US Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote in a social media post that the woman was a US citizen.
The senator also said that "ICE should leave now for everyone's safety."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is also demanding that ICE leave the city, according to a post from the city's official X account.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) echoed Smith and Frey's calls for ICE to get out of Minneapolis.
"ICE must stop terrorizing our communities and leave our city," she wrote in a social media post.
Others condemned the shooting as a clear case of criminal excessive force that should be treated as murder.
"This is an execution plain and simple," said journalist Krystal Ball in reaction to footage of the killing. "If your Trump love or immigrant hatred has you justifying murder, please seek help."
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz released a statement saying that his public safety team "is working to gather information on an ICE related shooting this morning," while vowing to "share information as we learn more."
"In the meantime, I ask folks to remain calm," Walz added.
One witness, who was in the neighborhood to act as a legal observer, described horrifying scenes to local reporters:
This is what an eyewitness said pic.twitter.com/vQrLkMFpdS
— Sarah Burris (@SarahBurris) January 7, 2026
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, put out a statement acknowledging that an ICE officer had fatally shot the woman and accused her of engaging in "domestic terrorism."
"ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism," the agency claimed, without providing any evidence. "An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement, and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots."
Video footage from scene as well as testimony from witnesses, however, betrayed the agency's version of events. As one social media user said, posting the following video, "Does this look like what you’re claiming?"
Does this look like what you’re claiming pic.twitter.com/4rV8n4LuSd
— Mogana (@MoganaPhilips) January 7, 2026
A separate video from a different angle (Warning: graphic footage), also shows that the individual in the car was trying to turn the vehicle away from officers, not harm anyone:
Here's the video for those who don't have Bluesky pic.twitter.com/vM3Bsfk8Uc
— Hussain (@huspsa) January 7, 2026
Federal officials in the past have made statements about incidents involving protesters that have been flatly contradicted by officers' own body camera footage.
In November, federal prosecutors dropped assault charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood, weeks after her attorney claimed to have seen body camera footage that completely undercut officers' claims.