SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
regime change
'We'll Hit Them Very Hard': Trump Threatens Iran Again as Protest Death Toll Rises
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him.
Jan 08, 2026
President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to attack Iran on Thursday in response to its government's increasingly violent crackdown on ongoing protests.
"If they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots—they have lots of riots—if they do it, we're going to hit them very hard," he said.
Addressing the Iranian people, he added: "You must stand up for your right to freedom. There is nothing like freedom. You are a brave people. It’s a shame what’s happening to your country."
The Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHR) reported on Thursday that Iranian security forces have killed at least 45 protesters since demonstrations against the regime began in late December. Wednesday was the bloodiest day yet, with 13 people reportedly killed.
On Thursday, Iranian authorities shut down internet access for the population, which has limited the flow of information in and out of the country.
The protests kicked off in response to the sudden collapse in the value of Iran's currency, the rial, which exacerbated the country's already spiraling cost-of-living crisis, heightening inflation and putting many basic goods out of reach for many Iranians.
This economic crisis has been shifted into hyperdrive since Trump returned to office last year and re-implemented his “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran, including more severe economic sanctions and a 12-day war in June during which the US struck several Iranian nuclear sites. Over the past year, the average cost of food has increased by 70%, while the cost of medicine has increased by 50%.
The rial has lost 95% of its value since 2018, when Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which included sanctions relief.
Last Friday, just one day before he bombed Venezuela as part of an operation to overthrow its leader Nicolás Maduro and seize the nation's oil reserves, Trump wrote on Truth Social that "if Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go."
On Tuesday, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a leading proponent of regime change, warned Iran's leaders that "if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life—Donald J. Trump is going to kill you." Just days before, Graham said that Iran's "weakened" state was thanks in part to Trump's efforts to "economically isolate" the country.
Iran has blamed the unrest on "interference in Iran’s internal affairs” by the United States. The nation's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has urged authorities to exhibit the “utmost restraint” in handling protesters. But earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said "rioters" must be "put in their place," while a top judge accused demonstrators of being agents of the US and Israel.
The latest swell of protests began after Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince and son of Iran's former US-backed shah, called for demonstrators to take to the streets. On Thursday, Pahlavi, who has lived most of his life in the US after the royal family was run out of Iran during the 1979 revolution, met with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him. Just a day before he issued his latest threat, he defended a federal immigration agent who fatally shot an unarmed mother in Minneapolis, while members of his administration falsely described her as a "domestic terrorist."
He has previously advocated for the US military to be deployed to use force against protesters and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell peaceful protests, including the No Kings demonstrators who mobilized nationwide in October.
Keep ReadingShow Less
It Was Trump, Not America: The Criminal Abduction of Venezuela’s President
Nicolás Maduro, regardless of how one views his politics, was the sitting head of state and therefore entitled to full diplomatic immunity under international law. The United States, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, has no jurisdiction to prosecute foreign heads of state captured through force.
Jan 07, 2026
The world watched in disbelief as US military forces stormed Venezuelan territory in the early hours of 2026 and abducted sitting President Nicolás Maduro. This act was not merely a foreign policy misstep. It was a flagrant violation of international law. And let’s be clear about one thing: this was not the United States acting as a lawful democracy. This was the Trump administration acting unlawfully while mis-using America’s name.
The distinction is of extreme importance.
Venezuela is a sovereign member of the United Nations. To seize its head of state by force—without consent, without UN authorization, without even congressional approval—was an illegal act under virtually every international and constitutional standard. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. No Security Council resolution authorized this action. No imminent threat justified it.
The world responded accordingly. Nations across Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa condemned the operation. Spain, Mexico, Brazil, China, Russia, and even the United Nations Secretary-General labeled the act what it was: a violation of international law, a dangerous precedent, a kidnapping.
The Trump administration did not speak for the United States. It acted against it.
And yet, Donald Trump—flanked by civilian “advisors” and media personalities-turned-warmongers—defended it as a “law enforcement action.”
It was nothing of the sort.
This was not about counter-narcotics. This was not about defending American lives. This was about regime change—unilateral, unsanctioned, and unconstitutional. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, among others, correctly described the operation as unauthorized and un-American, pointing out that it bypassed Congress, violated the War Powers Resolution, and risked plunging a nation of 30 million into chaos.
Trump’s motives? Political theater, perhaps. Big Oil interests, likely. But justice? Security? Democracy? Not even close.
Those operating under the Trump administration’s orders—including US Navy units enforcing the unlawful blockade and the special forces executing the raid—must not be cloaked in the authority of the United States of America. These are not actions carried out on behalf of the American people, under lawful authorization or in defense of national interests. They are acting solely in service to Trump’s personal agenda. If their mission must bear a flag, let it be emblazoned not with the Stars and Stripes—but with the “Trump” brand. The Department of Justice, too, must recognize this distinction. It knows the law, and it knows better. The prosecution of Nicolás Maduro—based on an act that violated head-of-state immunity and flouted international norms—must be dismissed.
Let’s look at the law.
Nicolás Maduro, regardless of how one views his politics, was the sitting head of state and therefore entitled to full diplomatic immunity under international law. The United States, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, has no jurisdiction to prosecute foreign heads of state captured through force. The Trump administration knew this—or should have. But they went ahead anyway.
The Department of Justice should dismiss the indictment against Maduro on precisely these grounds. Legal scholars point out that this isn’t just about a single operation—it’s about the integrity of US law and the global rules-based order. If we allow this precedent to stand, then we normalize lawless invasions and the collapse of international norms that have, for decades, prevented global war.
Let’s also be honest: this isn’t new. The US has a long and ugly history of regime change efforts—Chile, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, and now Venezuela. But past mistakes cannot justify future crimes. As Professor Jeffrey Sachs told the United Nations Security Council, the difference between a lawful world and an anarchic one lies in our willingness to enforce the rules—especially when our own leaders break them.
That’s why we must say it again, loudly and without hesitation: this was the Trump administration’s crime—not America’s.
To conflate the two is to abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and every principle that defines the legitimate exercise of American power. Congress was never consulted. The American people never consented. The action was hidden behind vague pretexts and carried out with overwhelming military force. This is not how a constitutional republic behaves. This is how an imperial presidency acts when left unchecked.
The Trump administration did not speak for the United States. It acted against it.
Now, it is up to the American people, lawmakers, and the judiciary to reclaim that distinction—and to ensure accountability for what may be one of the most reckless acts of foreign policy in modern US history.
We ask the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice the following:
(1) Direct the DOJ to dismiss the criminal indictment against President Nicolás Maduro on the basis of head of state immunity and the FSIA; and
(2) Issue a recommendation to the Executive Branch that any future actions involving the use of force or the apprehension of foreign officials be fully consistent with international law and obtain prior congressional approval as mandated by the War Powers Resolution.
Because if we fail to act, then the next crime won’t just be Trump’s—it will be ours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major US Newspapers Just Love a Good Illegal Military Intervention
With his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump proved he is no less an imperialist than his predecessors, and that’s precisely why many of the nation’s leading editorial pages are hailing Maduro’s capture.
Jan 06, 2026
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes,” Mark Twain allegedly quipped. On January 3, 1990, Panamanian Commander Manuel Noriega surrendered to US forces, who carried him off to face drug charges. Thirty-six years to the day later, US forces swooped into Venezuela, abducting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, following decades of hostility between the oil-rich socialist country and the United States. The pretext offered: Maduro had to be taken to the US to face drug charges.
The coincidence is a reminder that the US has a long history of both covert and military intervention in Latin America: President Donald Trump, as extreme as he might be, isn’t an outlier among American presidents in this regard. And despite the right’s attempt to paint Trump as some sort of peacenik (Compact, 4/7/23; X, 10/14/25), he is no less an imperialist than his predecessors.
And that’s precisely why many of the nation’s leading editorial pages are hailing Maduro’s capture.
‘Hemispheric Hygiene’
The Wall Street Journal editorial board (1/3/26) called the abductions “an act of hemispheric hygiene,” a dehumanizing comparison of Venezuela’s leaders to germs needing to be cleansed.
For the Journal, the abductions were justified because they weren’t just a blow to Venezuela, but to the rest of America’s official enemies. “The dictator was also part of the axis of US adversaries that includes Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran,” it said. It called Maduro’s “capture… a demonstration of Mr. Trump’s declaration to keep America’s enemies from spreading chaos in the Western Hemisphere.” It amplified Trump’s own rhetoric of adding on to the Roosevelt Corollary, saying “It’s the ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine”—a nod to the long-standing imperial notion that the US more or less owns the Western Hemisphere.
The next day, the Journal editorial board (1/4/26) even seemed upset that the Trump administration didn’t go far enough in Venezuela, worrying that it left the socialist regime in place, whose “new leaders rely so much on aid from Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran.” “Despite Mr. Trump’s vow that the US will ‘run the country,’ there is no one on the ground to do so,” the paper complained, thus reducing “the US ability to persuade the regime.”
You’re writing from the country that has spent the past four months blowing up small craft in the Caribbean, and you think it’s Maduro who has “destabilized the Western Hemisphere”?
The Washington Post board (1/3/26) took a similar view to the Journal. “This is a major victory for American interests,” it wrote. “Just hours before, supportive Chinese officials held a chummy meeting with Maduro, who had also been propped up by Russia, Cuba, and Iran.”
The Post, which has moved steadily to the right since Trump’s inauguration a year ago, seemed to endorse extreme “might makes right” militarism. “Maduro’s removal sends an important message to tin-pot dictators in Latin America and the world: Trump follows through,” the board wrote. (Really? Did we miss when Trump “followed through” on his promise to end the Ukraine War within 24 hours? Or to take back the Panama Canal? Or make Canada the 51st state?) It belittled Democratic President Joe Biden, who “offered sanctions relief to Venezuela, and Maduro responded to that show of weakness by stealing an election.”
Like the Journal, the Post board (1/4/26) followed up a day later to push Trump to take a more active role in Venezuela’s future. It worried about his decision to leave in place “dyed-in-the-wool Chavista” Delcy Rodriguez and other “hard-liners” in Maduro’s administration.
The Post chided Trump for dismissing the idea of installing opposition leader María Corina Machado, who it deemed a worthy partner in imperial prospects: “She has a strong record of standing for democracy and free markets, and she’s committed to doing lucrative business with the US.” As with the Journal, the assumption that it’s up to the US to choose Venezuela’s leadership went unquestioned.
‘Fueled Economic and Political Disruption’
The New York Times editorial board (1/3/26), on the other hand, condemned the abductions, saying Trump’s attack “represents a dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world.”
But the board only did so after the requisite vilifying, asserting that “few people will feel any sympathy for Mr. Maduro. He is undemocratic and repressive, and has destabilized the Western Hemisphere in recent years.”
You’re writing from the country that has spent the past four months blowing up small craft in the Caribbean, and you think it’s Maduro who has “destabilized the Western Hemisphere”?
Perhaps rather than worrying that US behavior will encourage some other country to behave lawlessly, US papers could be more concerned about their own country’s lawlessness.
Even as CBS News content czar Bari Weiss spiked a "60 Minutes" piece about the plight of Venezuelan migrants under the administration’s brutal round-ups, the Times editorial blamed Maduro alone for the humanitarian crisis at hand. “He has fueled economic and political disruption throughout the region by instigating an exodus of nearly 8 million migrants,” the editorial said. As is typical in US commentary on Venezuela (FAIR.org, 2/6/19), the word “sanctions” does not appear in the editorial, though US strictures have fueled an economic collapse three times worse than the Great Depression.
And it comes after the Times opinion page gave space calling for regime change in Venezuela. “Washington should approach dismantling the Maduro regime as we would any criminal enterprise,” wrote Jimmy Story (New York Times, 12/26/25), a former US ambassador to Venezuela. Right-wing Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote a piece simply headlined “The Case for Overthrowing Maduro” (11/17/25).
The Times didn’t mention the recent seizures of ships carrying Venezuelan oil (BBC, 12/21/25; Houston Public Media, 12/22/25)—or the issue of Venezuela’s oil at all, though even the paper’s own news section (1/3/25) admitted that oil was “central” to the kidnapping. “They stole our oil,” Trump dubiously claimed in his public address, bragging that the door to the country was now open to have “very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars… and start making money for the country.”
These are glaring oversights by the Times board, even if it ultimately waved its finger at the administration for its military action. Contrast this to the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle (1/3/26), which serves a huge portion of the energy sector:
Even now we’re still asking: Why? Why is the US taking such drastic military action? Is it to “take back” our oil? To deport Venezuelans en masse? To fight drug trafficking? To send a message to Cuba?
Perhaps this cloud of justifications just conceals the truth—there is no real reason. Trump seems to be doing this because he can.
‘Not a Guarantee’
Elsewhere in the press, the operation against Maduro won support from editorial boards that also reserved the right to say, “I told you so.” “Maduro Had to Be Removed,” said the Dallas Morning News editorial board (1/3/26) in its headline, adding in the subhead, “But the US Cannot ‘Run’ Venezuela.”
And the Miami Herald editorial board (1/3/26), which serves a large anti-socialist Latin American population, said that while Maduro out of power was “obviously cause for enormous joy,” this was “not a guarantee for democracy.” “Is Trump’s true interest to see democracy in Venezuela,” it asked, “or to install a new leader who’s more friendly to the US and its interests in the nation’s oil reserves?”
The Chicago Tribune editorial board (1/5/25) heaped paragraphs of praise on the Maduro mission—”we don’t lament Maduro’s exit for a moment”—and scoffed at “left-wing mayors” who “howled in protest at the weekend actions.” But it saw a moral dilemma:
What moral authority does the US now have if, say, China, removes the Taiwanese leadership, deeming it incompatible with Chinese interests? Not much. And this action surely weakens the moral argument against Vladimir Putin, though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now hoping Russia’s leader is the next authoritarian Trump takes out.
The New York Times editorial board (12/21/89) said something similar 36 years ago, when the US invaded Panama. While justifying the invasion, it asked, “What kind of precedent does the invasion set for potential Soviet action in Eastern Europe?”
Perhaps rather than worrying that US behavior will encourage some other country to behave lawlessly, US papers could be more concerned about their own country’s lawlessness. By kidnapping a foreign head of state, the Trump administration is saying that international law doesn’t apply to the United States. That’s a sentiment most American editorialists are all too ready to applaud—despite the danger it poses for Americans, and for the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular