The Senate advanced its version of a colossal package to authorize funding for the Pentagon on Thursday in the midst of the ongoing government shutdown.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which had been gathering dust as lawmakers worked to break through holds on the bill for over a month, advanced in the upper chamber on a bipartisan vote. The legislation would authorize roughly $925 billion in defense spending.

However, successful advancement of the bill after a marathon Senate vote on amendments came as the government entered Day 9 of the government shutdown with no clear end in sight. Lawmakers in the upper chamber aren’t expected to return until Tuesday, all but guaranteeing that military service members won’t get their paychecks next week. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., formally announced the breakthrough on the Senate floor after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., teased a possible vote Thursday morning. Wicker noted that in a particularly partisan moment in the upper chamber, the NDAA was able to sail through committee earlier this year on a near unanimous vote.

‘In this time, when we can’t seem to muster up a 60-vote majority to keep us in business as a federal government, we were able to pass the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 26-to-1,’ Wicker said.

Lawmakers were finally able to move on the legislative package after Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., dropped his hold on the measure.

Gallego had called for a vote on his amendment that would have prevented Ashli Babbitt, who was killed during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, from receiving military funeral honors. The Air Force extended an offer for military funeral honors for Babbitt in August.

Senators charged through over a dozen partisan amendments and a massive batch of roughly 50 add-ons to the legislative package before moving the bill. The House passed its own version last month.

Among the failed amendments was one from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., which would have blocked money to retrofit a Boeing 747 that President Donald Trump accepted from the Qatari government earlier this year.  

Another, from Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., would have prevented Trump and governors around the country from signing off on sending the National Guard from one state to another if a governor or mayor rejected the move. 

One successful amendment, from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force for Iraq, which, at the time, authorized President George W. Bush to use the U.S. military as he deemed ‘to be necessary and appropriate’ in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

It would also repeal a similar resolution passed in 1991 during the Gulf War. The House’s version of the bill included repeals of both authorizations, too. 

However, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., had vowed to block the package Thursday afternoon in an effort to ‘secure a hearing to investigate this gross abuse of our military’ in response to Trump sending the National Guard to Chicago and other cities across the country.

But she backed off her threat after Wicker promised a hearing on the matter ‘in the coming weeks.’

‘I look forward to asking tough questions of the Trump administration about their unconstitutional National Guard deployments to American cities against state and local officials’ objections,’ she said in a statement. 

The Nobel Committee awarded this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado amid calls for President Donald Trump to receive the award in the wake of his brokering a historic deal between Israel and Hamas. 

Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader, was described as a ‘brave and committed champion of peace’ by Joergen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

‘She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy,’ Frydnes said.

Trump has received several high-profile nominations since returning to office. However, the committee’s deadline for nominations was Jan. 31, meaning he could be eligible for next year’s prize.

During a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump was asked about the Nobel Peace Prize, but did not comment on the award in his response. Instead, he focused on the possibility of addressing Israel’s Knesset.

Earlier this week, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, a group representing the families of hostages and terror victims formed after Oct. 7, appealed to the committee on Trump’s behalf.

‘In this past year, no leader or organization has contributed more to peace around the world than President Trump. While many have spoken eloquently about peace, he has achieved it. While others have offered empty promises, he has delivered tangible results that have saved countless lives,’ the forum wrote in a letter to the committee dated Oct. 6.

‘He has not merely spoken of peace — he has delivered it,’ the forum added.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump in July during a visit to Washington, D.C., that he had nominated the president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Netanyahu handed the letter he sent the committee to Trump when he told him the news.

‘The president has already realized great opportunities. He forged the Abraham Accords. He’s forging peace, as we speak, in one country and one region after the other,’ Netanyahu said. ‘So, I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize committee. It’s nominating you for the peace prize, which is well-deserved.’

Weeks prior to that meeting, the U.S. and Israel carried out major operations that destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, as both countries warned a nuclear Tehran would be a threat to the world.

Trump was nominated for the award in the past but was not selected. Notably, U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., nominated Trump for the prize in 2020 when he brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and Arab nations.

Had he won, Trump would have become the fifth U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Previous laureates include former President Barack Obama, former President Jimmy Carter, former President Woodrow Wilson and former President Theodore Roosevelt.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner and Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.

Nothing woke America up to the realities of gender ideology quicker than the photo of Riley Gaines standing next to her National Championship opponent, a 6’1′ male towering over her with his broad shoulders and smoldering grin. You felt it in your bones – this isn’t right. 

The moment sparked a nationwide campaign to try and convince everyday Americans that this feeling was not just instinct; it was internalized bigotry and evidence that there was noble, progressive work still to do. Only one problem. It was all a lie. And recent admissions show that not even the top Democratic leaders believed what they were selling.  

Just five years ago, I was a freshman in college, testifying in my dorm room about a bill that stated men cannot compete on women’s sports teams. ‘Politics are crazy,’ I thought, ‘Why do I even need to testify on something so obvious?’ 

I quickly learned of my own naivety when the bill did not pass in my very conservative state. ‘This isn’t a real issue,’ they insisted while I, a female athlete who had previously competed against a man, sat in front of them. There was clearly much more to this problem than I realized.

When the spotlight on the issue grew, it was somehow immediately deemed partisan. The issue was linked to the Democrats’ pro-LGBTQIA+ position, which they had insisted was the civil rights issue of our time, and now it was squarely at odds with something plainly unjust. But they were in too deep. 

At every turn, those who tried to find solutions to the problem of men in women’s sports, including traditionally far-left organizations like Women’s Liberation Front, found themselves up against the powerful political operatives of the Democratic Party. Though the ties between LGB and T were fading, the radical left insisted that to be pro-gay or pro-woman, you had to also stand for men in women’s sports. Democrats obliged.

In some ways, this makes sense. If the Democrats acknowledge that sex exists in sports, then what does this mean to other parts of their agenda that rely on sex-denying ideology? The crusade to abolish sex is one that spans decades, and they are not about to budge now. So, they doubled down, even redefining ‘sex’ as ‘gender identity’ wherever they could, including in landmark pro-woman legislation like Title IX, and they continued to label anything contrary as ‘extreme’ through the 2024 election. 

Concerned Women for America LAC exit polling suggests this issue played an outsized role in the election, and the Democrats paid the price with a resounding loss in both chambers of the federal government and the White House. Voters did not buy the lie that their concerns were merely internalized bigotry. And at least some Democrats are finally ready to face the music and speak more openly about it.

The Democrats’ highest-ranking figure has finally addressed one of the biggest political flops of modern history, and while her confession is unsurprising, it should shake the party to its core. 

In her recently released book about her presidential candidacy, former Vice President Kamala Harris admits that she, too, shares concerns: ‘I agree with the concerns expressed by parents and players that we have to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays on which teams, especially in contact sports.’ 

But she added, ‘There was no way I was going to go against my very nature and turn on transgender people.’

And there it is. Tension unmasked. When reality collides with allegiance, the Democrats choose allegiance.

The highest leaders of the party know they were ignoring the real, reasonable and consequential concerns of millions of women. Abandoning women and their safety was a calculation worth making in their eyes. 

Harris is not alone. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has publicly admitted that this is ‘an issue of fairness – it’s deeply unfair.’ Yet, his state is one of the worst offenders of women’s rights in this area.

On this Worldwide X/X Day (Real Women’s Day), the good news is that some party members are choosing reality and abandoning ship. Just a few weeks ago, 10 House Democrats voted, for the first time, for a National Defense Authorization Act amendment that would keep men from competing on women’s athletic teams at service academies. Just a few months ago, most of these same members refused to vote for a bill with similar protections. 

As we hope this issue joins the parade of failed civil rights attacks of times gone by, voters and candidates alike should heed the warning. Never stand for a lie. Truth is our only sure foundation. Policy must be based on reality.

We know wrong when we see it. It is instinctive, and often clearly on display, like that photo of Riley Gaines’ medal being given to a male.

President Donald Trump turned heads when he signed a recent executive order promising to defend the state of Qatar from attack and – in so doing – protect U.S. interests. The language of the order is clear: if Qatar is attacked, ‘the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures – including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military.’

This move comes after Israel, another close American ally, hit Qatar with airstrikes targeting Hamas officials. Some people who don’t understand the full context of the president’s Middle East peace strategy have questioned this order, even though Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has since apologized for the strikes and promised no further action in Qatar.

The truth is that Trump’s executive order is yet another example of his abiding commitment to protecting American interests in the Middle East. During his first term, he declared that ‘The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.’ 

The Biden administration rewarded Qatar’s support during its withdrawal from Afghanistan by designating the nation a major non-NATO ally in 2022. We are in a new strategic calculus surrounding Qatar, and this is the context in which Trump has taken such a bold move.

President Trump is interpreting the strategic moment unlike any United States president before him. The Qatar announcement puts all parties in the region on notice: Israel conducted military strikes against Doha. It won’t do that again any time soon. Iran struck Qatar. It will think long and hard about doing anything close. The Saudis have paired up with the Pakistanis for mutual defense. Trump has done a checkmate. The political office of Hamas in Qatar is just less relevant now. 

Trump is forcing peace by clarifying options and the game for long-standing divisions from the Levant to the Gulf. This is bringing the broader Middle East closer to peace than it has been in years.

Who else could staunchly support Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas and Iran’s nuclear program while simultaneously being tough on Netanyahu to actively pursue peace? There’s a tremendous amount of nuance in this approach.

Here is the president’s goal: A durable peace deal, not just between Israel and Hamas, but one that brings all parties in the Middle East to the table. This is why the United States has been so involved in brokering a deal in the Middle East and has relied on the positive relationships that Trump has built through trade and diplomacy.

America has been clear that there is some room for negotiation, but some things won’t change. Primary among them is that Hamas must disarm. This is a prerequisite to any lasting peace and Trump knows it. That’s why the 20-part plan is take it or leave it on the condition of disarmament.

Further evidence of the genius of this approach is the broad support the plan has received from disparate countries, both in the Middle East and in Europe. It has garnered support from countries that are both for and against Palestinian statehood. The plan has served as a unifying beacon to a region (and a world) that has long wanted peace but has never had a leader courageous and tenacious enough to make that dream a reality.

Another outcome of this broad support is the true isolation of Hamas. They’re the only ones who are for their continued militarization. In effect, by their protracted resistance to peace, they have alienated almost everyone who may be sympathetic to some of their nonviolent goals. That puts Hamas under enormous pressure – pressure that is both intentional and calculated to move the Middle East toward lasting peace.

All this comes while Trump has doubled down on American and European support of Ukraine to find a way to speed up the end of Europe’s horrible war, yet another example of the administration keeping promises made during the presidential campaign. The approach should sound familiar. 

The president provided Russia with every opportunity to end the conflict peacefully. Despite that effort, Moscow refused and has continued its aggression toward Ukraine. Now, as a last resort — just like the situation with Iran’s nuclear program – the United States is providing additional support to its allies, all in service of the ultimate goal, which has always been and will always be lasting peace, not just for the Middle East, but for the world. Trump is determined to be the peace strategist. 

The Senate is set to leave town on Friday until early next week as neither side is ready to give in the ongoing government shutdown stalemate.

Lawmakers voted deep into the night on Thursday on the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which advanced on a largely bipartisan vote. But the $925 billion package, which authorizes funding for the Pentagon, was effectively the last hurrah for the week in the upper chamber.

While there was discussion of putting the House GOP’s continuing resolution (CR), along with congressional Democrats’ counter-proposal, on the floor for one last vote, the plan never came to fruition. Both would likely have failed for an eighth consecutive time.

Senate Republicans and Democrats will instead return on Tuesday next week, after observing Columbus Day, to continue the ongoing back and forth on the GOP’s CR following a week of trying and failing to pass the bill and reopen the government.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., plans to continue bringing the Republicans’ bill to the floor in an effort to fragment Senate Democrats. So far, only three Democratic caucus members have consistently split from their largely unified party.

Talks have continued in the background behind closed-doors, but nothing has quite yet materialized into full-blown negotiations on expiring Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), tax credits to find an off-ramp as the government shutdown barrels into a third week.

‘The ACA issue is important to a lot of us, not just to Democrats,’ Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said. ‘The tax subsidies were enhanced during COVID. They do need to be reformed, but they do need to be extended as well.’

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., is one of a handful of Republicans consistently meeting with Democrats. He said he’s not meeting with lawmakers ‘so dug in that they can’t get off their position,’ but still, no movement across the aisle has happened.

Mullin and other Republicans want to pass their short-term CR until Nov. 21, while Senate Democrats are adamant that, unless there is a deal on the ACA subsidies, they won’t provide GOP with the votes to reopen the government.

‘Well, if it continues, the way it’s gone, the longer we go, the harder it is,’ Mullin said. ‘It’s a big task. Anything to do with ACA or healthcare, you get a lot of moving parts. I think that gets very difficult the longer this thing [goes on]. You get into next week. I mean, we’ve got four and a half weeks left, right, and so that timeframe keeps getting shorter.’

Their return next week also all but guarantees that members of the military will not receive their paychecks on time, given that the date to have payroll locked in and processed falls on Monday.

‘Certainly, if folks miss a paycheck, the intensity will go up,’ Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., said.

The continued gridlock has most in the Senate GOP unwilling to consider turning to the ‘nuclear option,’ a move they made last month when they unilaterally changed the Senate’s rules for confirmations on nominations to break through Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus’ blockade of President Donald Trump’s nominees, to change the filibuster.

‘There’s always a lot of swirl out there, as you know, from, you know, social media, etc., but no, we’re not having that conversation,’ Thune said.

But not every Republican wants to ignore nuking the 60-vote filibuster as, day in and day out, the GOP’s plan to reopen the government falls five votes short.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said that if the shutdown continues, it’s an option that should be considered.

‘Look, 50%, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck,’ he said. ‘We’re going to trip that wire next week. Now if there’s another paycheck — that’s probably 80% of Americans that can’t go without two paychecks in a row. I think at that point we have to look at it and say ‘the Democrats are still doing political stunts.’’

Republicans also found a new point of attack against Democrats. Schumer told Punchbowl News in an interview that ‘Every day gets better for us,’ in his assessment of Senate Democrats’ political momentum as the shutdown marches onward.

‘Who is ‘us?’ Not better for the American people,’ Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said. ‘Who does he mean by ‘us?’ Not the military who is not getting paid. Not the Border Patrol who are not getting paid. Not the air traffic controllers who are not getting paid. Who is ‘us?’ He’s playing a game!’

But Senate Democrats are largely shrugging off the issue. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, contended that it was Republicans’ latest attempt to ‘change the topic from 114% increase in premiums,’ a point Democrats have argued could happen if the Obamacare tax credits aren’t extended.

‘They’re a little desperate to change the news cycle, and this is their latest attempt,’ Schatz said. 

Senate Republicans are taking a hands-off approach to threats from White House budget chief Russ Vought, arguing that his pressure on Senate Democrats to reopen the government, for now, is warranted.

Away from the gridlock on Capitol Hill, Vought, who is the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has made moves to pressure Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to reopen the government.

Before the shutdown started earlier this month, the OMB released a memo to government agencies instructing mass firings beyond the typical furloughs of nonessential employees during government shutdowns. He has since withheld nearly $30 billion in infrastructure funding to blue states and cities.

And earlier this week, a memo circulated around the White House that suggested that furloughed employees would not receive back pay when the government reopened — a move that runs counter to a law signed by President Donald Trump in 2019.

‘We heard earlier, right at the beginning of the shutdown, that we may see some terminations, some firings within the department,’ Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told Fox News Digital. ‘We saw a lot of big numbers kind of thrown around, and they haven’t materialized, which I think is good, but certainly what it does, it’s very unsettling.’

The administration’s latest actions come as conversations on a path out of the shutdown have been ongoing. For now, Republicans don’t believe that Vought’s moves are undercutting those talks.

Sen. John Hoeven. R-N.D., told Fox News Digital that Vought was what Vought ‘thinks probably helps push Democrats to come to the table and open the government back up.’

‘I mean, that’s for him to decide,’ he said. ‘What I’m looking to do is to try to talk to enough Democrats, and I hope that between reaching out to them and pressure they get from back home, we can get the government open and back to work on these things.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital that the administration was ‘going to do what they’re going to do, and they’ve got to manage this, and they’re going to manage it according to their priorities.’

‘I think they’re trying to be sensitive to discussions up here that might be productive,’ Thune said. ‘But, you know, as of right now, it’s like I said before, all this stuff is just kind of window dressing until we fundamentally get down to the issue about, are we going to open up the government or not?

‘And I think when all those issues go away, these guys, the things that the White House is talking about doing or hinting that they might do, become unnecessary,’ he continued.

Senate Democrats are demanding a deal extending expiring Obamacare subsidies, and won’t provide the votes needed to reopen the government unless they get more than a guarantee to tackle the issue.

Thune and Senate Republicans are adamant that they will negotiate on extending the tax credits, with reforms baked in, only after the government reopens. And so far, as the stalemate has dragged on, neither Vought nor the administration have taken action on their threats of mass firings or back pay.  

‘Right now it’s fine,’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Fox News Digital. ‘If he starts taking Draconian sorts of actions, then I think it creates a more difficult scenario for us. It puts us further away from what he wants to get accomplished, too.’

Still, Senate Democrats have not taken kindly to his overtures.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital that there was ‘no question’ Vought was hurting ongoing talks between the parties.

‘Russ Vought is basically acting like a bomb thrower, and bomb throwers are never helpful in negotiations,’ he said. 

Publicly, the White House says the latest strikes in the Caribbean are aimed at cartel infrastructure. Privately, some analysts suspect the campaign is calibrated to do something else: weaken longtime U.S. foe Nicolás Maduro’s grip on power.

President Donald Trump is ramping up pressure on the Venezuelan regime, striking four boats in the Caribbean Sea linked to drug trafficking networks tied to Caracas over the past month. Alongside those strikes, the U.S. has repositioned three destroyers, an amphibious assault ship, a nuclear-powered attack submarine and a squadron of F-35s to Puerto Rico — a deployment that has prompted one question in Washington and across the region: is the United States preparing for all-out war on Caracas?

So far, defense analysts say that seems unlikely. A ground invasion would require far more troops than are currently in the theater — between 50,000 and 150,000 by some estimates.

Somewhere around 10,000 troops have been repositioned in Latin America, a senior defense official told The New York Times.

‘The U.S. just doesn’t have enough forces there,’ said Mark Cancian, a senior defense adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘What I think they’ve put in place is the capability to launch strikes at either the cartels or the Maduro regime. If I had to bet, it’s probably against the cartels — but I wouldn’t rule out something against the regime.’

That limited but flexible posture reflects what some experts call a modern form of coercive diplomacy.

‘It sort of looks like we’re in the throes of a 21st-century version of gunboat diplomacy,’ said Brandan Buck, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute. ‘The Trump administration is doing what it can to force some sort of transition [of] power — out of Maduro’s hands and into someone else’s — without a classic invasion.’

The pressure campaign has accelerated this year. The administration raised the bounty on Maduro — Venezuela’s kleptocratic leader for more than a decade — to $50 million, and officials familiar with internal discussions say Trump has grown frustrated with the dictator’s refusal to step aside. Diplomatic outreach to Caracas was reportedly suspended this week.

While the Pentagon continues to frame the campaign as counter-narcotics, the U.S. military’s posture now allows for much more. Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Washington’s evolving approach reflects a growing willingness to confront the regime directly.

‘There appears to be growing appetite to confront Maduro’s regime directly — including potentially land-based strikes within Venezuela,’ Berg said. ‘The force posture currently in the southern Caribbean is consonant with the potential for precision strikes using Tomahawk missiles or other weapons, but without risking the lives of U.S. service personnel.’

Behind the scenes, Berg noted, the administration has taken steps to prepare the legal ground for such action.

‘The clearest signal yet is the legal justification for a non-international armed conflict,’ he said. ‘That tells us several departments’ Office of Legal Counsel were tasked with building the case for potential strikes.’

The White House continues to describe the operation as homeland defense — stopping drug and fentanyl shipments before they reach U.S. shores — but analysts say Venezuela’s unique role in the drug trade blurs that line.

‘Under Maduro, Venezuela is a criminal regime,’ Berg said. ‘What makes the threat unique is that the regime controls the institutions of the state — and its military — to move drug shipments and participate in other illicit economies.’

That dynamic means targeting cartels could also destabilize the regime that depends on them. Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and retired Navy officer, said striking cartel networks could ultimately make Maduro’s rule unsustainable.

‘The Maduro regime is reliant on the cartels to maintain its bottom line and stay in power,’ Sadler said. ‘If you weaken the cartel backing of the regime, then the regime itself becomes unsustainable. You don’t have to go in guns blazing — you let it crumble under its own weight.’

Cancian said the expanding U.S. presence at sea and in the air ‘indicates this thing may end up being larger or go on longer than expected.’ Any strikes against cartel production facilities inland, he added, risk bleeding into regime targets such as intelligence or defense ministries.

‘They could easily strike the intelligence service or the Ministry of Defense,’ Cancian said. ‘That’s where things could start to blur.’

But Democrats have accused Trump officials of trying to get the U.S. roped into another war. Republican senators on Thursday blocked an effort led by Senate Democrats to curb Trump’s war powers with a resolution stating Trump does not have the power to authorize strikes without approval from Congress.

The potential for retaliation remains a wild card. Venezuela’s conventional forces are weak, but analysts warn that the regime could rely on its cartel allies or proxy networks to strike back indirectly.

‘Maduro could facilitate their retaliation,’ Cancian said. ‘That could mean attacks on DEA agents or American citizens in the Caribbean. The cartels have the ability to do that.’

So far, few regional actors appear willing to come to Maduro’s defense. Berg said even many of the regime’s neighbors would quietly welcome his fall.

‘Many would be secretly happy to see him go,’ he said. ‘But you’d expect a few voices —  [President Gustavo] Petro in Colombia, [President Inacio] Lula in Brazil — to object to the use of force.’

Erik Suarez, a Venezuelan-born political activist, said the hemisphere is already dividing over the issue.

‘We can divide South America [into] two sides,’ he said. ‘Lula in Brazil and Petro in Colombia are aligned with Maduro, but many others — Ecuador, Peru, Guyana, and Caribbean states — see Venezuela as a major threat because of mass migration and the spread of drug traffickers and terrorists.’

Suarez said the Maduro regime’s alliances with armed groups and terror networks make it not just a domestic problem but a direct threat to U.S. security.

‘Venezuela represents a huge national security threat — not only ideologically, but to homeland security,’ he said. ‘They’ve issued passports to Hezbollah members and targeted dissidents abroad. Keeping Maduro in power is a long-term danger to the U.S.’

That view is shared by Venezuelan opposition leaders in the U.S. and many Latin Americans who fled communist dictatorships and their descendants, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Even if Washington succeeds in toppling Maduro, rebuilding Venezuela would be a monumental challenge. The country’s opposition — led by María Corina Machado and 2024 President-elect Edmundo González Urrutia — has legitimacy but faces the task of stabilizing a shattered state.

‘The opposition has had months to prepare for governing,’ Berg said. ‘They’re full of plans to get Venezuela back on a path of development and greater security.’