

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.

Sarah Sloan 202-904-7949, ss@justiceonline.org
"The Secret Service's security failures inside the perimeter of the White House grounds do not provide a legitimate basis for extinguishing the First Amendment rights of the American public outside those grounds, on the White House sidewalk and Pennsylvania Avenue, and should not be used as a pretext to accomplish those aims," stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional rights attorney and Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund.
"Closing the White House sidewalk or Pennsylvania Avenue to protest, or setting up checkpoints, would be an outrageous assault on free speech rights in the United States," stated Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard. "In fact, any such action would be an unconstitutional abridgment and illegal removal from public access of one of the most important, vibrant, historical and critical public fora that exists for the purpose of free expression."
"The lifeblood of democracy is the access by the people to public and proximate space to influence the government which returns regularly to proposals to keep the people as far away as possible," stated constitutional rights attorney Carl Messineo, Legal Director of the PCJF. "Time and again the government has tried to restrict access to public space for free speech activities, and time and again it has been up to a vigilant public and civil liberties advocates to stop these incursions."
The White House sidewalk and Pennsylvania Avenue are a central site for demonstrations and pickets as people come to petition their government.
The first mass assembly protest in front of the White House in the post 9-11 period took place on Sept. 24, 2005, when the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund successfully obtained a permit for an anti-war demonstration overcoming the government's four-year ban on such activity. Approximately 300,000 people marched on Pennsylvania Avenue directly in front of the White House. It was the first mass assembly that had been allowed there in those four years and since then (as prior to September 11) there have been many demonstrations, spontaneous or planned, large and small.
Last September, when President Obama held a Rose Garden press conference about the possibility of new airstrikes on Syria, the White House press corps reported that antiwar protesters on the White House sidewalk could be heard in the background of their live feeds. Officers immediately began ordering protesters off of the adjacent sidewalk where they had lawfully assembled. The Associated Press reported that these proposed new restrictive regulations on access to public space around the White House are the product of previous planning for a change in policy. This recent incursion is being used as the pretext, the triggering event for the public unveiling of the proposals.
"This is not just about 'security' concerns," stated Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard. "This is part of a growing trend that we are fighting in the removal of public space from the people, to whom it rightfully belongs."
We are witnessing a systematic effort in Washington, D.C., and around the country to restrict access to spaces where the public has gathered together for the exercise of cherished free speech rights, to engage in dissent and redress grievances. Each effort to reduce the use of public space for protest and assembly has been heralded by an urgent pretext of either "national security" or the protection of public space from the normal, incidental effects on land and grass of public use.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has brought constitutional rights litigation as well as national public advocacy campaigns to keep public space open and available to the public. The PCJF successfully litigated the right of the people to have mass assembly on the Great Lawn of Central Park when the Bloomberg administration sought to close the area to protest under the pretext of protecting the grass. Similarly, in 2008 the PCJF launched a successful campaign to stop the National Park Service from driving mass protest from the National Mall also under the pretext of protecting the grass, a challenge that six year later is returning to the fore. The PCJF brought the litigation that struck down the D.C. police department's unprecedented military-style checkpoint program winning a unanimous ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which found the checkpoints unconstitutional. The PCJF is currently litigating the right of access for free speech along Pennsylvania Avenue at the Inauguration (as it has since 2001) as well as bringing numerous other free speech and public space cases.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund is a public interest legal organization that brings a unique and cutting edge approach dedicated to the defense of human and civil rights secured by law, the protection of free speech and dissent, and the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. Among the PCJF cases are constitutional law, civil rights, women's rights, economic justice matters and Freedom of Information Act cases.
(202) 232-1180"I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is," said one critic. "He did not inform Congress but he’s saying he informed the oil companies."
President Donald Trump on Sunday told reporters that the heads of American oil companies were informed of the US military's attack on Venezuela—described as "brazenly illegal" by scholars and experts—even before it took place.
Trump's admission, a renowned liar, sparked condemnation because the administration refused to consult with US lawmakers about the operation, citing fears of a leak that would compromise operational security.
"Before and after," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday when asked if he'd spoken with oil executives or perhaps "tipped them off" about the operation. "They want to go in, and they're going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela."
Reporter: Did you speak with the oil companies before the operation? Did you tip them off?
Trump: Before and after. They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job. pic.twitter.com/zxOG648Ww0
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 5, 2026
Trump's remarks were condemned by those critical of the president's actions in recent days, including his failure to consult with or seek authorization from Congress.
"I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is," said Fred Wellman, an Army combat veteran now running for Congress as a Democrat in Missouri. "He did not inform Congress, but he’s saying he informed the oil companies."
"Keep in mind who he means," Wellman added. "The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors."
"The oil companies were notified before Congress," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. "This is what an authoritarian oligarchy looks like."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) echoed that statement. "The oil companies were informed about an act of war before it happened, Congress was not. That, my friends, is what an authoritarian regime run by oligarchs looks like."
Asked repeatedly during his exchange with reporters about whether "free and fair" elections were a priority for Venezuela, Trump said the country was a "mess"—calling it a "dead country"—and that priority would be on getting the oil flowing.
"We're gonna have the big oil companies go in, and they're gonna fix the infrastructure, and they're going to invest money. We're not going to invest anything; we're gonna just take care of the country," Trump said. "We're gonna cherish the country."
When asked which oil companies he spoke with, Trump said, "All of them, basically," though he did not mention which ones specifically by name.
"They want to go in so badly," the president claimed.
Despite Trump's remarks, oil industry experts have said it's not nearly so clear-cut that oil majors in the US will want to re-enter the Venezuela oil market—or be tasked with funding a significant rebuild of the nation's oil infrastructure—given the political uncertainty unleashed by Trump's unlawful military operation and the kidnapping of Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro.
"The issue is not just that the infrastructure is in bad shape, but it's mostly about how do you get foreign companies to start pouring money in before they have a clear perspective on the political stability, the contract situation, and the like," Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American energy program at Rice University, told NPR.
The infrastructure investments alone are huge, even under normal political circumstances.
"The estimate is that in order for Venezuela to increase from one million barrels per day—that is what it produces today—to four million barrels, it will take about a decade and about a hundred billion dollars of investment," Monaldi said.
In an interview with The New Yorker over the weekend, Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School and the director of its Center for Global Legal Challenges, said there is absolutely no legal justification for Trump's assault on Venezuela or the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
"I don’t think there is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela," Hathaway said. "There are certainly legal arguments that the Administration is going to make, but all the arguments that I’ve heard so far don’t hold water. None of them really justify what the President seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela."
In a statement on Saturday, Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International, said Trump's assault on Venezuela "defies the US Constitution’s delegation of Congress’s war-making authority and disregards international rules that prevent acts of war without debate or authorization. The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
As Trump and other members of the administration continued to threaten other countries in the region—including Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba—Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan said, "This is the behavior of a mob boss—but with nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military. None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague."
"This is militarized authoritarianism," said one advocacy group. "We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict."
Protests broke out at US diplomatic outposts across the globe Saturday and Sunday following the Trump administration's deadly attack on Venezuela and abduction of the nation's president, brazen violations of international law that—according to the American president—were just the start of a sustained intervention in Venezuela's politics and oil industry.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Brussels, Madrid, Ankara, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other major cities worldwide to voice opposition to the US assault on Venezuela and Trump administration officials' pledge to "run" the country's government for an unspecified period of time, a plan that Venezuelan leaders have publicly met with defiance.
The US Mission to Mexico—one of several Latin American countries Trump threatened in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela—warned in an alert issued Saturday that "a protest denouncing US actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the US Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City."
"Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls," the alert read. "Social media posts about the protest have included anti-American sentiment. Embassy personnel have been advised to avoid the area."





The global demonstrations came as some world leaders, including top European officials, faced backlash for failing to adequately condemn—or condemn at all—the US attack on Venezuela and continued menacing of a sovereign nation.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she supports "a peaceful and democratic transition," without mentioning or denouncing the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and US bombings that reportedly killed at least 40 people, including civilians.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that "this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions" as protesters gathered in Athens in opposition to the US assault.
"If you still believe that the European Union cares about international law, then look no further," wrote Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler, pointing to Mitsotakis' statement.
"We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Mass protests and demands for international action to halt US aggression proliferated amid ongoing questions about how the Trump administration intends to carry out its stated plan to control Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves—objectives that experts say would run afoul of domestic and international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who played a central role in planning the Venezuela attack and has been chosen by Trump to manage the aftermath, said Sunday that the administration intends to keep in place a military "quarantine" around the South American nation—including the massive naval force amassed in the Caribbean in recent months—to pressure the country's leadership to bow to US demands.
"That's a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is number one, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela," Rubio said in a television interview.
Rubio also suggested the president could deploy US troops to Venezuela and dodged questions about the legal authority the Trump administration has to intervene in the country. The administration has not sought congressional authorization for any of its attacks on vessels in the Caribbean or Venezuela directly.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that "in recent history, we've tried 'running' multiple countries in Latin America and the Middle East. It's been a disaster for us, and for them, every single time."
"Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution to get our military back to defending the US, instead of 'running' Venezuela," Casar added.
Progressive Democrats of America echoed that demand, saying in a statement that "this is militarized authoritarianism."
"We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict," the group added. "We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America."
US President Donald Trump left no doubt on Saturday that a—or perhaps the—primary driver of his decision to illegally attack Venezuela, abduct its president, and pledge to indefinitely run its government was his desire to control and exploit the country's oil reserves, which are believed to be the largest in the world.
Over the course of Trump's lengthy press conference following Saturday's assault, the word "oil" was mentioned dozens of times as the president vowed to unleash powerful fossil fuel giants on the South American nation and begin "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground"—with a healthy cut of it going to the US "in the form of reimbursement" for the supposed "damages caused us" by Venezuela.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said, suggesting American troops could be deployed, without congressional authorization, to bolster such efforts.
"We're going to get the oil flowing the way it should be," he added.
Currently, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela, whose oil industry and broader economy have been badly hampered by US sanctions. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is "prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security."
Other oil behemoths, some of which helped bankroll Trump's presidential campaign, are likely licking their chops—even if they've been mostly quiet in the wake of the US attack, which was widely condemned as unlawful and potentially catastrophic for the region. Amnesty International said Saturday that "the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources" likely "constitutes a violation of international law."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos."
Thomas O'Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that "the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco," noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged "unlawful expropriation" of oil investments.
The Houston Chronicle reported that "Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves. The company, along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, had a number of failed contract attempts with Venezuela under Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez."
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's escalation in Venezuela "follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world's most oil-rich territories," said Bast. "The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that the president's own words make plain that his attack on Venezuela and attempt to impose his will there are "about trying to grab Venezuela's oil for Trump's billionaire buddies."
In a statement, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) echoed that sentiment, calling Trump's assault on Venezuela "rank imperialism."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world."