January 3, 2026, will go down in history as the day Venezuelans recovered something many had believed lost: hope. That hope did not come from abstract promises, but from the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro — the first sign in decades that Venezuela may veer off the trajectory of authoritarian rule, economic collapse, and mass exile that has defined the country for 26 years. Despite this renewed optimism, many critics of the Trump administration have suggested the operation was somehow unethical or misguided. Those critics miss the point entirely. Toppling Maduro has paved the way for long-term stability grounded in free-market capitalism and the rule of law to take root in Venezuela. If these forces are allowed to flourish, they will reshape the military, political, and economic structures that guide the country, and allow Venezuela to fully re-enter the global community. It is no accident that authoritarians controlled Venezuela for as long as they did. To topple a regime from the inside, you need either a massive popular uprising or some kind of military coup. Maduro made sure both were impossible in Venezuela. A 2013 law banned the sale of firearms and ammunition to civilians and imposes prison sentences of up to 20 years for unauthorized possession. Over the past decade, the Maduro regime aggressively disarmed the population, ensuring that ordinary citizens have no means to resist a usurping government or defend a democratic transition. That means no uprising would succeed without the military’s involvement. Which is why in recent years Maduro expanded the Venezuelan officer corps, which reportedly boasts over 2,000 generals and admirals — more than double the number in the United States. In a system saturated with generals, no single faction can act decisively without broad internal backing. Plotting a coup becomes exponentially harder when success requires the loyalty of dozens, if not hundreds, of senior figures rather than a centralized command. And, because so many of those officers have been rewarded with lucrative posts or interests in vast sectors of the economy, it would be difficult for an opposition faction or reform-minded general to rally enough support within the officer corps to mount a successful coup. Fortunately, the fact that the Venezuelan military is more a patronage program than a fighting force allowed American forces to topple Maduro in just 88 minutes. That was a major step in the right direction, but hardly a guarantee of future success. Even with Maduro gone, any Venezuelan regime that hopes to endure will need the military’s buy-in. And because Maduro spent years purchasing officers’ loyalty, it won’t be easy for an opposition leader to swoop in and take control. That’s why Maduro’s de facto vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, was left in power after Maduro’s capture. Many expected opposition leader María Corina Machado — whose coalition overwhelmingly won the 2024 elections — to assume leadership. Instead, President Donald Trump declined to back her, arguing she lacked sufficient internal support. Allowing Rodríguez to serve as a temporary bridge likely reduces the number of officers required to defect at once, lowering the coordination threshold needed to maintain stability. And, at a time when the American body politic is highly suspicious of “regime change” and “forever wars,” respecting this reality ostensibly diminishes the need for troops on the ground. Moreover, immediate installation would have been politically toxic for Machado. A staunch defender of democratic rule, she must earn her mandate from Venezuelans, not appear as a foreign appointee marching into Miraflores on the heels of American troops. If Machado is to translate political momentum into lasting change, she will need to leverage Venezuela’s greatest asset: its oil reserves. The country holds an estimated 300 billion barrels of proven reserves, the largest in the world. But Venezuela’s oil is not an easy prize. Most of it is heavy or extra-heavy crude — dense, sulfur-rich, and costly to extract, transport, and refine. Oil production has fallen from roughly 3.2 million barrels per day in 2000 to about 1 million today, and experts agree that rebuilding lost capacity will take years of sustained investment and technical rehabilitation. Reviving the sector will require tens of billions of dollars in long-term investment. But American companies will not make multi-billion-dollar investments based on speeches, personalities, or election cycles. They will invest if they believe the rules of the game will endure. In this sense, Venezuela’s recovery is inseparable from free-market reform and the rule of law. This is why the transition underway is about far more than replacing one leader with another. It is about replacing an economic model. Venezuela’s oil sector — and its broader economy — cannot recover without sustained private investment, and sustained private investment requires credible commitment to free-market capitalism, property rights, and the rule of law. Anything less signals instability and thus keeps capital on the sidelines. Incentives are aligned in a rare and encouraging way. American companies want stability, predictability, and enforceable contracts. Venezuelans want lasting freedom, prosperity, and insulation from the return of authoritarian socialism. Both depend on the same outcome: a durable shift away from state control and toward a market-based system that cannot be easily undone. The more Venezuela commits to capitalism, the safer long-term investment becomes. And the more capital flows in, the harder it becomes for any future government to reverse course without catastrophic cost. That alignment matters. It creates a feedback loop in which economic openness reinforces political durability, and political durability reinforces economic confidence. This — not ideology, not personality, and not short-term geopolitics — is the most important driver of Venezuela’s future. Venezuela’s trajectory depends on balancing three forces: military power, political legitimacy, and market-driven recovery. Mismanaging any one of them risks collapse. The United States and its allies must avoid the temptation to pursue oil while tolerating authoritarian continuity. That path would only produce a new class of kleptocrats. Done correctly, however, this moment offers a rare alignment of interests. Venezuelans want dignity and self-government. Investors want stability and lawful capitalism. And the United States has an opportunity to support a transition that is neither naïve nor imperial, but grounded in realism. The door is open. What comes next will decide whether hope can walk through it and materialize as the liberty and prosperity millions of Venezuelans, like myself, have been praying, yearning, and working for decades. Olga Benacerraf de Strulovic is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School. She was born and raised in Venezuela’s capital city of Caracas, and was one of many Venezuelans who fled the country during Nicolás Maduro’s rule.  The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden is tying the hands of ICE agents in Minneapolis as rioting continues to escalate in the liberal city. Agents are now barred from detaining or using tear gas or other measures against peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing operations, according to an order issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez on Friday night. Complicating the already heated operations and riots in the Minneapolis area, Menendez says officers would have to show probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime or is obstructing law enforcement operations to act. Additionally, the judge specifically noted that following officers “at an appropriate distance” is not reason for an officer to take any action. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reacted to the order by stressing that “rioting” is not protected by the First Amendment and said DHS will continue to uphold the rule of law and protect their officers and the public. “We remind the public that rioting is dangerous—obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a felony,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Rioters and terrorists have assaulted law enforcement, launched fireworks at them, slashed the tires of their vehicles, and vandalized federal property. Others have chosen to ignore commands and have attempted to impede law enforcement operations and used their vehicles as weapons against our officers.” “Despite these grave threats and dangerous situations, our law enforcement has followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property,” she added. As highlighted by The Daily Wire, ICE operations in the liberal city have become subject to heated rioting. Fox News National Correspondent Alexis McAdams, for example, said she’s observed rioters behaving more like trained operators than spontaneous protesters. “This isn’t a protest — it’s an operation. Anti-ICE activists in Minneapolis rapidly track, doxx, and harass anyone they believe is tied to ICE,” she said, adding, “They take pics of you, your license plate, & upload to their ‘data base.'” This isn’t a protest — it’s an operation. Anti-ICE activists in Minneapolis rapidly track, doxx, and harass anyone they believe is tied to ICE. They take pics of you, your license plate, & upload to their “data base”. Follow you, harass you, & try to stop active… pic.twitter.com/s9m54zSIrW — Alexis McAdams (@AlexisMcAdamsTV) January 16, 2026 Earlier this month, an ICE agent fatally shot a protester named Renee Good after she hit him with her vehicle during operations. DHS says the officer suffered internal bleeding from the incident and acted in self-defense, likely saving other agents, too. Related: LIVE UPDATES: DOJ To Investigate Walz, Minneapolis Mayor, For Impeding ICE Agents

Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are under federal investigation amid their opposition to the Trump administration’s massive immigration enforcement operation in the state, a source close to the situation confirmed to The Daily Wire. CBS News first reported the details of the investigation, which focuses on allegations that Walz and Frey have interfered with federal immigration operations. A U.S. official told the outlet that the Justice Department is looking into statements that Walz and Frey have made regarding the recent surge in federal law enforcement to Minnesota. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche hinted at the federal government taking action against Walz and Frey, saying on Wednesday, “Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.” The DOJ investigation focuses on federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 372, which addresses two or more people who conspire through “force, intimidation or threats” to prevent federal law enforcement officers from carrying out their duties, CBS News reported. Both the governor and the mayor have made inflammatory statements about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents following the deadly shooting of Renee Good last week. In an address on Wednesday night, Walz urged Minnesotans to follow ICE agents and record their actions to help the state “create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans” that could be used for “future prosecutions.” In the hours after Good was shot and killed, Frey told ICE to “get the f*ck out of Minneapolis.” Later, Frey said that ICE agents were “causing chaos” in Minneapolis and suggested that residents were asking for the city police to “fight” ICE agents “on the streets” before he urged residents to remain peaceful. As the Minnesota Democratic leaders have denounced ICE’s actions, demonstrations in Minneapolis continue, some of which have turned violent. On Wednesday night, a federal agent was ambushed and attacked by three illegal immigrants while attempting to make an arrest, according to the Department of Homeland Security. After the second ICE-involved shooting, demonstrators descended on the scene of the incident and confronted federal officers. Some of the agitators threw fireworks at law enforcement, and the crowd was cleared out of the area with tear gas. President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act on Thursday, blasting “corrupt politicians in Minnesota,” who “don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E.” On Friday, however, Trump told reporters outside of the White House that he doesn’t think there’s “any reason right now right now” to use the Insurrection Act.

WASHINGTON — After years of criticizing Donald Trump, the president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is admitting that he was “pressured” and “coerced” by Alvin Bragg and Letitia James to testify against Donald Trump. In an astonishing Substack post published Friday evening, Cohen writes that he “felt pressured and coerced to only provide information and testimony that would satisfy the government’s desire to build the cases against and secure a judgment and convictions against President Trump.” He said the feeling began from his very first meetings with the lawyers working with Bragg and James, New York’s attorney general.  Specifically regarding James, he said he felt “compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.” “Letitia James made it publicly known during her 2018 campaign for attorney general that, if elected, she would go after President Trump,” Cohen writes in the post. “Her office made clear that the testimony they wanted from me was testimony that would help them do just that. Again, I felt compelled and coerced to deliver what they were seeking.” Cohen writes about the two trials in which he testified against Donald Trump: the first, a civil action brought by the New York attorney general’s office accusing Trump of fraudulently inflating his assets to get favorable loans. The second case was a criminal action by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office alleging that Trump falsified business records related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to influence the 2016 presidential election. The jury found Trump guilty in both cases. Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, prepares to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill, February 27, 201,9 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Cohen served prison time after he pleaded guilty in 2018 to multiple crimes, including lying to Congress. He also admitted during Trump’s hush money trial that he stole tens of thousands from the Trump Organization in 2017. In his Substack article, Cohen notes that a federal appeals court just revived the president’s effort to undo his hush money conviction. He reflects that silently letting the record stand without proper context feels like complicity, prompting him to speak out. “I am not writing this to defend Donald Trump, nor to relitigate his conduct,” he writes. “That ground has been plowed endlessly, often loudly, and rarely thoughtfully. I am writing because I have seen this system from the inside, not as an observer or analyst, but as a central subpoenaed participant. When courts now revisit questions of jurisdiction, immunity, and evidentiary boundaries, they are not engaging in sterile procedural debates. They are exposing how justice is pursued, how power is applied, and how outcomes are shaped well before verdicts are rendered.”  Cohen writes that he first met with prosecutors from the Manhattan DA’s office in August 2019, three months into his three-year prison sentence. He was released in September 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and for good behavior and allowed to serve out the rest of his term at home until November 2021. Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump is sworn in before testifying before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) He says he continued meeting with prosecutors after his release in the hope that his home confinement and supervised release would be shorter because he was cooperating. He also writes that the reason he cooperated with the prosecutors from the Manhattan DA’s office was that he wanted to get out of prison and home to his family.  “During my time with prosecutors, both in preparation for and during the trials, it was clear they were interested only in testimony from me that would enable them to convict President Trump,” he wrote. “When my testimony was insufficient for a point the prosecution sought to make, prosecutors frequently asked inappropriate leading questions to elicit answers that supported their narrative.”  Cohen says that he also felt coerced and pressured into giving answers that supported the narrative from James, as her office made it very clear to him that they wanted testimony that would help them go after Trump. “Letitia James and Alvin Bragg may not share the same office or political calendar, but they share the same playbook,” he writes. “Both used their platforms to elevate their profiles, to claim the mantle of the officials who ‘took down Trump.’ In doing so, they blurred the line between justice and politics; and in that blur, the credibility of both suffered.” As for why he is speaking out now, Cohen says he has “witnessed firsthand the damage done when prosecutors pick their target first and then seek evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.”  “I have lived inside that process,” he wrote. “I have suffered from that process. And as courts now reconsider where the Bragg and James cases belong, how they were brought and how they were tried; that experience is relevant. More today than ever before.”  “When politics and prosecution become indistinguishable, public trust erodes; not just in individual cases, like mine and/or Trump’s, but in the system itself,” he concludes. “That erosion serves no one, regardless of party, personality, or power.”

The following is an edited transcript from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * Because of the anarchy that has been allowed — and even encouraged — to fester by the Left, there are now liberals walking around Minneapolis stopping random, nice, white dads and demanding that they prove they’re not ICE. Liberals protesting ICE thought this man was an ICE agent, so they stopped him to make sure he wasn’t. pic.twitter.com/17xrVAJLvN — Clown World ™ ? (@ClownWorld) January 15, 2026 Credit: @ClownWorld/X.com Watching this, two TV scenes immediately came to mind. The first is from Breaking Bad, when Walter White tries to negotiate with the drug dealers who are about to kill his brother-in-law. He thinks he can reason with them. His brother-in-law tells him, “What are you talking about? They made up their mind ten minutes ago.” The other scene is from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, when Frank says, “Yeah, they started coming up to me and I didn’t know what they wanted, so I started blasting.” I certainly don’t encourage the latter — but those are two very different approaches to the same situation. The guy in this video seems to think these people are being reasonable. This band of leftists — they’re not black-masked Antifa terrorists. They just look dopey and annoying. Awful, insolent white twenty-somethings. They demand, “Prove that you’re not ICE.” And he responds, “Okay, all right, I’ll show you the back of my SUV — but I don’t have to do this.” Then he adds, “I appreciate you guys.” Really? He appreciate them going around to random middle-aged white guys and demanding that they prove they’re not law enforcement? If they were law enforcement, they would have no right to do this. Actual law enforcement should be arresting these kids just for asking the question, because they’re clearly obstructing law enforcement and criminal investigations. WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show But this — this is what you get when ICE doesn’t enforce the law. This is what you get when state and local authorities refuse to enforce the law. All of a sudden, you have bands of vigilantes going around singling people out. Why are they singling this guy out? Do they seriously think he’s law enforcement? No. They’re singling him out based on his race, sex, and age — because they don’t like middle-aged white guys. That’s what’s happening here. And this dope is walking around saying, “All right, listen, I respect what you’re doing. I don’t have to do this, but I respect it. (Please don’t—please don’t gang up on me.)” Luckily, the group here seems to be just as dopey as he is. They don’t appear to pose much of a threat — at least not in this moment. But we’ve seen these kinds of left-wing gangs commit real violence. And we’ve seen even bourgeois, middle-class white liberals justify that violence — something that shows up clearly in a lot of social-scientific surveys. That’s what you get.