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
donald trump
Cuba Vows to Defend Itself Against Trump to 'The Last Drop of Blood'
"Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do," said Cuba's President Miguel Diaz-Canel in response to the latest threat from the authoritarian US president.
Jan 11, 2026
President Donald Trump was ripped by humanitarians and anti-war voices on Sunday after he again threatened Cuba by saying the US military would be used to prevent oil and other resources from reaching the country, threats that come just over a week after the American president ordered the unlawful attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
In a social media post Sunday morning, Trump declared:
Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided “Security Services” for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last weeks U.S.A. attack, and Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years. Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the World (by far!), to protect them, and protect them we will. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA - ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT
Cuba's President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejected Trump's latest comments and threat of military force, saying the island nation was ready to defend itself.
"Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do," Diaz-Canel said in a social media post. "Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the US for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood."
Progressive critics of the US president were also quick to hit back. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, said the "true extortionist" in this situation is Trump himself, as she detailed the mutual benefit of the relationship between the Venezuelan and Cuban governments over recent decades:
Trump says Cuba is “extorting” Venezuela.
Yet, it was Cuba that sent 250,000 health workers to Venezuela, lowered infant mortality, restored eyesight, and trained local doctors.
The true extortionist is Trump. pic.twitter.com/79b9IafeSH
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) January 11, 2026
"What is extortion?" Benjamin asks. "It's what Donald Trump is doing: taking over those oil tankers, confiscating 30-50 million tons of oil—that is extortion. And saying to Venezuela, 'We're going to run your country." Donald Trump is the greatest extortionist our country has seen."
Reuters reports Sunday, citing shipping data, that Venezuela has been Cuba's "biggest oil supplier, but no cargoes have departed from Venezuelan ports to the Caribbean country since the capture of Maduro.
Speaking with CBS News on Sunday, Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) said that Trump's threats to strangle the people of Cuba by enforcing a resource blockade were "like magical" in her ears and those of her right-wing constituents who live in Miami's large community of Cuban exiles.
Welcoming Trump's efforts to bully Cuba into submission, Salazar claimed that Cuba's government is "hanging by a threat" she said, before correcting herself, "a thread, I should say."
Oddly—but notably—Salazar continued her remarks by saying it was Cuba that has been an "immense" threat to the United States, as she described it as a nation "with no water; they have no electricity; they have no food—nothing. So if you think Maduro is weak, Cuba is even weaker. And now they do not have one drop of oil coming from Venezuela."
President Trump announced on TruthSocial that “there will be no more oil or money going to Cuba,” Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) responded saying “those words are like magical.”
“Cuba is really a center of power for our enemies,” Salazar told @margbrennan. “Now, I think… pic.twitter.com/CSZNRI30lZ
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 11, 2026
But progressive voices opposed to Trump's authoritarian violations of international law, his bullying of allies and enemies alike with claims that the US can do whatever it likes in the name of national security and claims of national interest, are warning that the threats against Cuba and other nations represent a chilling development that must be met with international opposition and condemnation.
"The US blockade of Cuba is the longest-standing act of collective punishment in the world," said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, pointing to Trump's remarks. "It is condemned by the entire international community every year at the UN. And now, the US president is doubling down on this cruel and illegal punishment. Enough."
"This is an emergency," Progressive International explained in a dispatch last week, warning about Trump's overt hostility toward Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and other nations in the wake of the US attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores.
"The United States is rapidly escalating its assault on the Americas—and the principle of self-determination at large," warned the international advocacy group. "Under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, Donald Trump and his cronies are leading a campaign of imperial aggression that stretches from Caracas to Havana, Mexico City to Bogotá."
According to the dispatch:
What we are witnessing today is class struggle played out through imperial violence. The United States stands as the political and military instrument of capital: Big Oil bankrolling politics; arms manufacturers profiting from destruction; and financial power thriving on plunder and permanent war. These sections of capital pay for the policies they desire and are richly rewarded. The share prices of US oil majors soared around 10% following Maduro’s kidnapping, representing a return of around $100 billion on an investment of $450 million in the last US elections.
The government serves its donors, so aggression can proceed without consent. Public opinion has repeatedly shown opposition to U.S. military action in Venezuela — a gap between elite appetite and popular will bridged by force, not democracy.
Venezuela — like many nations before it — represents a different possibility: that the popular classes might govern themselves, control their resources, and chart a future beyond imperial command. And that possibility represents an existential threat to empire.
The group said Sunday's latest threat by Trump against Cuba—openly saying that the US military might will be used to prevent life-sustaining resources from reaching the island nation—should be seen for what it is: a coercive "threat to strangle Cuba of critical energy and resources" at the end of a barrel of a gun.
"Through manipulation, coercion, and now direct military action," the group warns, the US government under Trump "has made absolutely clear its intention to dominate Latin America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Kristi Noem Goes on TV and Lies Through Her Teeth (Again) About ICE Killing of Renee Nicole Good
"It should be terrifying to every American how Noem lies," said one critic. "She doesn't sweat or move uncomfortably. She just doesn't care. This is what Trump has created. An environment where you only get in trouble if you don't lie."
Jan 11, 2026
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sat for a live interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday morning about the killing of Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration agent last week and lied straight through her teeth to the American public about what happened.
Since Good was shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross on Wednesday, members of the Trump administration have consistently tried to portray the shooting as justified despite indisputable video evidence contradicting their false claims and narratives.
Noem, who released her first statement on the shooting within three hours of Good's killing, has joined Vice President JD Vance as the leading liars and propagandists—with plenty of help from people like Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the US Department of Homeland Security, and Border Czar Tom Homan—within the Trump administration.
In her exchange with Tapper, who confronted Noem over the blatant chasm between her claims about what happened—she called Good a "domestic terrorist" who "attacked" federal agents—and what anyone with two good eyes who watches the variety of videos made public of the shooting can plainly see for themselves.
Tapper: Why did you not wait for an investigation before making your comments?
Noem: Well, everything that I've said has been proven to be factual, and the truth.
Tapper: With all due respect the first thing you said was not what happened.
Noem: It absolutely is pic.twitter.com/0yGeWSr9aa
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 11, 2026
Various angles of the video, including audio from Good's final moments, have shown that she was not "yelling" at officers or "attacking" them in any way. Video shows several vehicles driving around her car in the minutes prior to the shooting. Good has a visible smile on her face when she says, directly to Ross as he circles her car, "That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you." Detailed analyses of the footage shows Ross could just as easily have stepped aside—without drawing and firing his weapon—in order to dodge the moving car, which he did—even with firing the fatal shots—without injury or harm to others.
Asked by Tapper why she did not wait for the full facts before speaking out publicly to demonize Good and defend the officer, Noem falsely claimed that "everything that I've said has been proven to be factual, and the truth."
That's a lie.
"With all due respect," Tapper responded, "the first thing you said was not what happened."
"It is absolutely what happened," Noem said, lying once again about her initial comments and their relationship to what factually transpired.
"It should be terrifying to every American how Noem lies," said James Abrenio, a criminal defense attorney, in a social media post on Sunday. "She doesn't sweat or move uncomfortably. She just doesn't care. This is what Trump has created. An environment where you only get in trouble if you don't lie. Even about an officer shooting a woman in the face on video."
Noem, in the interview, goes on to claim that Good's behavior fits the textbook definition of "domestic terrorism," despite scores of law enforcement and civil liberties experts who have reviewed the video saying that Ross' behavior betrayed basic police training about how to deal with a routine traffic stop or de-escalate a situation involving a motor vehicle in a roadway.
When Tapper tries to pin Noem down, asking her to explain what she thinks Good was trying to do when she moved her car, the secretary deflects by saying the real "question" should be why are people—in this case a broadcast journalist—"arguing with the president who is trying to keep people safe?"
Noem's overt gaslighting—telling the public something objectively contrary to available facts—has become part and parcel of the Trump administration's Orwellian approach in the president's second term.
"Kristi Noem is a stone-cold liar who has zero credibility," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the minority leader in the House, on Friday in reaction to her earlier comments about the case. "There is nothing to suggest the shooting of an unarmed woman in Minneapolis was justified. This heinous killing must be criminally investigated to the full extent of the law."
On Friday, The Guardian documented a litany of false claims made Noem, Trump, McLaughlin, and others, comparing them against what is factually known based on video evidence and eye-witness accounts:
The claim
“ … 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” – post on X by the Department of Homeland Security.
The reality
There is simply no evidence that Good was “a violent rioter” or “domestic terrorist”. No riot was taking place before her encounter with the ICE agents, and the department could not yet have been certain of her identity at 12.43pm, the time the message was posted. There is no evidence that Good – a poet and mother – was a terrorist.
The claim
“ … the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer” – post on Truth Social by Donald Trump.
The reality
Video of the incident shows that Good was not “disorderly”, and had reversed her car and allowed at least one ICE vehicle to pass before other agents confronted her. A separate video clearly shows that the officer who fired the fatal shots walked up to the front of Good’s car, which was turning away from him as it began to move forward, and he remained on his feet as the vehicle passed him.
The claim
“An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots … The ICE officers who were hurt are expected to make full recoveries” – Tricia McLaughlin, homeland security assistant secretary, in a post on X.
The reality
The officer who killed Good was not in the pathway of her car when he began firing, analysis of the video shows. Two other officers were beside the car, and no members of the public were seen to be in harm’s way. There is no evidence that any ICE officer was injured.
According to The Atlantic's Adam Serwer, such "blatant lies" by the administration in the wake of Good's killing serve various purposes:
They perpetuate the false narrative that federal agents are in constant peril and therefore justified in using lethal force at the slightest hint of danger. They assure federal agents that they can harm or even kill American citizens with impunity, and warn those who might be moved to protest Trump’s immigration policies of the same thing. Perhaps most grim, they communicate to the public that if you happen to be killed by a federal agent, your government will bear false witness to the world that you were a terrorist.
Following the DHS secretary's latest comments on Sunday, Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, also speaking on Tapper's show, said Noem "needs to resign or be impeached."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Just the Latest Strongman to Think He Can Control Venezuela
Again and again, external actors arrive convinced that this time, through capital, force, or expertise, they have finally grasped what Venezuela is and what it needs. The confidence never lasts.
Jan 11, 2026
When US forces carried out a large-scale military operation in Caracas on January 3, 2026—capturing President Nicolás Maduro and transporting him to New York to face US indictments—Washington framed the moment as resolution. President Donald Trump declared Venezuela’s long crisis effectively over, announcing that the United States would “run” the country for a period of time and openly discussing the reinstallation of US oil interests. The language was casual, almost improvisational, as if Venezuela were an unruly subsidiary finally brought to heel.
What the operation revealed, however, was not strategic clarity but a familiar blindness. Once again, US power moved decisively while understanding lagged far behind. Leadership was removed, headlines were captured, yet the deeper structures shaping Venezuelan life—its history of extraction, its social networks, its hard-earned skepticism toward imposed authority—remained untouched. The episode fit neatly into a long pattern: Outsiders mistaking control for comprehension.
For more than five centuries, Venezuela has attracted this kind of attention. It has been treated as a resource cache, a geopolitical puzzle, a cautionary tale, or a problem to be solved. Rarely has it been approached as a society with its own internal logic. Again and again, external actors arrive convinced that this time, through capital, force, or expertise, they have finally grasped what Venezuela is and what it needs. The confidence never lasts.
The misreading begins early. When Alonso de Ojeda and Amerigo Vespucci reached the northern coast in 1499 and named it Veneziola, they imposed a European metaphor on a place already dense with meaning. Indigenous societies—the Timoto-Cuica in the Andes, Carib and Arawak peoples along the coast—had built complex agricultural systems, trade routes, and ecological knowledge. Spanish conquest dismantled much of this world, extracting pearls, gold, and cacao while concentrating power in Caracas, a city whose monumental architecture masked the fragility beneath it.
Venezuela has been misread repeatedly. Not because it is unknowable, but because powerful outsiders rarely bother to know it on its own terms.
Colonial Venezuela was never cohesive. Authority flowed downward; legitimacy never followed. The German Welser banking house, granted control of the territory in the 16th century, pursued gold through enslavement and violence. Later, the Guipuzcoan Company monopolized trade, choking local economic life. Periodic uprisings were crushed rather than resolved. The lesson repeated itself quietly but insistently: Wealth could be extracted, order imposed temporarily, but social trust could not be engineered from afar.
Independence did not resolve these tensions. 19th century unfolded through fragmentation, regionalism, and civil war. Simón Bolívar understood Venezuela better than most foreign admirers or critics since, yet even he struggled to translate military success into durable political unity. The Federal War left the country devastated and more unequal, reinforcing a pattern in which power was centralized while social cohesion remained elusive. European creditors and early oil prospectors took note, circling patiently.
Oil altered Venezuela’s position in the world but not its underlying dynamics. In the early 20th century, Juan Vicente Gómez offered foreign companies stability and access in exchange for political backing. Later, Marcos Pérez Jiménez presented a gleaming vision of modernization—highways, towers, civic monuments—that impressed visiting dignitaries. The spectacle worked. Venezuela appeared governable, even exemplary. Yet outside the frame, inequality hardened and participation narrowed. Development was visible; legitimacy was thin.
By the time the bolívar collapsed on Black Friday in 1983, the illusion was difficult to sustain. An economy tethered to oil rents proved dangerously exposed to global shocks, while political institutions remained distant from everyday life. The Caracazo riots of 1989 were not a sudden breakdown but a release, an eruption from a society that had absorbed decades of exclusion. International observers described chaos. Venezuelans recognized continuity.
Hugo Chávez entered this landscape not as a rupture but as a condensation of long-simmering forces. His rise drew on popular frustration with a system that had promised stability and delivered precarity. The brief 2002 coup against him, quietly welcomed in Washington, collapsed almost immediately, undone by mass mobilization. Power changed hands; legitimacy reasserted itself. Chávez’s social programs produced real gains while deepening reliance on oil, leaving unresolved the same vulnerability that had defined Venezuelan political economy for a century.
After Chávez’s death, Nicolás Maduro governed a system already under strain. Falling oil prices, hyperinflation, protest cycles, mass migration, and partial dollarization followed. External pressure mounted, sanctions, recognition battles, diplomatic theater, often treating Venezuela less as a society than as a message. Leadership was personalized; history flattened.
The capture of Maduro followed this script. It was decisive, dramatic, and legible to a US political culture that favors clear villains and clean endings. What it did not do was engage the complexity of Venezuelan life: the informal economies that keep neighborhoods fed, the communal networks that substitute for absent institutions, the cultural memory shaped by centuries of extraction and resistance. These dynamics do not disappear when a president boards a plane.
Venezuelan resilience rarely makes headlines because it lacks spectacle. It is found in Indigenous land stewardship, Afro-Venezuelan cultural traditions, cooperative food systems, remittance networks, and everyday improvisation. Migration, so often framed solely as collapse, has also become a form of continuity, extending social ties across borders rather than severing them.
Oil still looms over everything. The 1970s boom, including Saudi-Venezuelan cooperation, promised autonomy through abundance and delivered deeper dependence instead. Resource wealth invited intervention and centralization while postponing harder questions about participation and governance. The pattern has proven remarkably durable.
Venezuela’s history does not yield easily to slogans or interventions. It resists tidy moral arcs and quick fixes. Again and again, external actors—most recently the Trump administration—have approached the country as if force, markets, or managerial confidence could substitute for understanding. Each time, they discover too late that Venezuela is not an abstraction but a living society shaped by long memory and adaptive survival.
Venezuela has been misread repeatedly. Not because it is unknowable, but because powerful outsiders rarely bother to know it on its own terms. And so the cycle continues: decisive action, confident declarations, and, beneath them all, a society that endures—complex, unfinished, and stubbornly beyond control.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular