Senator Ruben Gallego is speaking out against the overthrow of Venezuela’s socialist president.
Gallego compared U.S. interventionism in Venezuela with the U.S. waging war in the Middle East, where Gallego deployed in the military.
“I lived through the consequences of an illegal war sold to the American people with lies,” said Gallego. “The American people did not ask for this, Congress did not authorize this, and our service members should not be sent into harm’s way for another unnecessary conflict.”
Gallego promised he would be introducing a bill to deny Trump the ability to intervene in foreign nations without congressional permission.
The senator also said in media interviews that it wasn’t up to the U.S. to determine who maintains power in Venezuela or other countries. Gallego predicted that Venezuelans would implement a more “leftist” government that’s more opposed to the U.S.
“This administration has zero clue what they’re doing. They’re basically following a really dumb man into a very dumb war potentially, and that creates very dumb outcomes,” said Gallego. “We’ve moved on from being the world cop to the world bully.”
Over the weekend the U.S. conducted a strike on Venezuela’s capital. Troops arrested Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.
Maduro faces federal drug trafficking charges in New York: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the U.S. Maduro pleaded not guilty on Monday.
Contrary to what Gallego claimed, President Donald Trump hasn’t declared war in Venezuela. He confirmed as much in media interviews. Trump said he’s now in charge of Venezuela.
Despite corrections to his narrative, Gallego has continued to push the claim to the media that the U.S. declared war on Venezuela.
“When people are shooting and shooting back, that is war. That’s exactly what occurred here,” said Gallego. “They’re just trying to get people climatized to the idea of us going to war.”
Gallego said that while he believed it was “great” that Maduro was unseated, he doesn’t believe the U.S. had the right to interfere. The senator claimed that the Trump administration misled him in briefings by denying that the U.S. was conducting a regime change or declaring war on Venezuela.
“All this is one more excuse for us to either occupy Venezuela, take their oil, and more importantly you’re violating the Constitution of the United States,” said Gallego.
Gallego also did an interview in Spanish criticizing the Trump administration for providing Venezuela with a pathway to freedom.
La libertad de Venezuela tiene que venir de los venezolanos, no de los Estados Unidos. pic.twitter.com/Lrs8V3U2kC
Trump advised that Maduro’s successor, Delcy Rodriguez, will serve as interim president so long as she complies with his directives on running Venezuela.
“[I]f she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” the president said in an interview with The Atlantic on Sunday. “You know, rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Department of War will be punishing Senator Mark Kelly for making seditious statements.
The department took administrative action against Kelly in the form of retirement grade determination proceedings, which included a reduction in Kelly’s retired pay.
An accompanying formal letter of censure from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth dismissed Kelly’s claims that he was merely reminding service members of their duty to not carry out orders that break the law.
“This pattern demonstrates that you [Kelly] were not providing abstract legal education about the duty to refuse patently illegal orders,” said Hegseth. “You were specifically counseling servicemembers to refuse particular operations that you have characterized as illegal.”
Kelly and five other members of Congress, all fellow Democrats, published a joint video statement telling servicemembers to refuse orders issued by President Donald Trump. The group didn’t elaborate on which orders they thought to be illegal or unconstitutional.
“We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk,” stated Kelly and his coalition. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”
In a public statement announcing the proceedings against Kelly, Hegseth said Kelly’s speech was “reckless and seditious,” and qualified for “military justice.”
Hegseth warned Kelly that his position as an elected official doesn’t put him beyond the reach of penalization.
“Captain Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action,” said Hegseth.
Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline. As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he…
In a lengthy response statement, Kelly vowed to fight the punishment.
“Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that,” said Kelly. “I will fight this with everything I’ve got — not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don’t get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.”
Over twenty-five years in the U.S. Navy, thirty-nine combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution – including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the President of the…
Congressman Abe Hamadeh said Kelly’s remarks were a form of blackmail — not just advice.
“By suggesting there ‘could’ be severe consequences for carrying out undefined ‘unlawful’ orders, the ‘Seditious Six’ are emotionally blackmailing our active-duty personnel,” said Hamadeh. “The reason Democrats refuse to name what they consider to be illegal orders by President Trump is that they want our military and intelligence community to question every order they receive from this administration. They want to make our active-duty personnel hesitate to execute the agenda voted for by the American people, paralyzing these men and women with the threat of future punishment.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s elected officials are sharply divided following the U.S. military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and their transfer to the United States to face federal criminal charges.
The dramatic action, announced by President Donald Trump, involved a precision military operation in Caracas and the extraction of Maduro to New York, where he is expected to appear in federal court on drug and narco-terrorism charges.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) condemned the raid in a statement posted to X, saying that while Maduro is a “brutal, illegitimate dictator” who deserves justice, the decision to overthrow a foreign ruler without broader planning undermines U.S. security and lacks a clear strategy for what comes next. Kelly said the operation doesn’t “make Americans any safer today than they were yesterday” and warned against repeating past foreign policy mistakes.
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ-07) also criticized the operation in a statement posted to X, as “reckless, unconstitutional, and deeply destabilizing,” arguing that bypassing Congress for military action erodes democratic accountability and sets a dangerous precedent.
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) argued that while Maduro’s regime “shattered Venezuela,” the U.S. Constitution requires congressional authorization for acts of war — a threshold he argued was not met.
Support for the raid among Arizona Republicans centered on holding Maduro accountable for years of alleged narcotic trafficking and violence.
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06) framed the action as a decisive strike against a “narco-terror regime” responsible for drug flows into the United States. He praised U.S. military personnel for executing the mission “with courage and precision” and said the operation sends a clear signal that the U.S. will confront threats in its hemisphere.
Earlier today, American service members carried out a decisive operation aimed at disrupting a narco-terror regime responsible for years of harm to the United States. Nicolás Maduro and the criminal network he leads have fueled the flow of illegal drugs into the United States,…
— Congressman Juan Ciscomani (@RepCiscomani) January 3, 2026
In a similar supporting statement, Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ-08) wrote, “I support President Donald Trump’s decisive actions to hold Nicolás Maduro accountable, a brutal oppressor who has led a drug cartel masquerading as a government and terrorized his own people. Maduro is an illegitimate ruler who lost at the ballot box and now clings to power through violence, corruption, and the narcotics trade that has poisoned American communities. This is peace through strength in action, defending our own backyard and stopping threats before they reach our borders. Reports that Chinese officials met with Maduro just yesterday and were still on the ground during the operation only underscore how urgent and necessary strong American leadership is. Peace through strength!”
Gubernatorial candidate Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) characterized the raid as consistent with “America First” leadership and defended the legal grounding of the operation, noting that the indictments against Maduro formed the basis for a law-enforcement action with military support.
Sen. Warren Petersen (R-LD14) also praised the operation, highlighting Maduro’s status as an indicted narco-terrorist and emphasizing that Trump’s actions were necessary where previous administrations had failed.
He wrote, “Maduro murdered thousands, indicted twice on narco-terrorism charges, and has a $50M bounty on his head. Yet our classless Democrat Senators are sympathizing with him and crying over his arrest. Unreal. Prioritizing a brutal thug over justice and the Venezuelan people. The DOJ arrested him with assistance of the US Military. 100 percent constitutional under Article 2 powers. Biden said he would take care of Maduro but did not. Biden talked, Trump acted.”
Maduro murdered thousands, indicted twice on narco-terrorism charges, and has a $50M bounty on his head. Yet our classless Democrat Senators are sympathizing with him and crying over his arrest. Unreal. Prioritizing a brutal thug over justice and the Venezuelan people.
Karrin Taylor Robson, also a Republican gubernatorial contender, thanked U.S. troops for the successful mission and described Trump’s action as protecting American communities from drug-related harm.
The split in Arizona reflects a broader national debate over executive authority, constitutional war powers, and U.S. foreign intervention, and, more broadly, familiar partisan divisions over President Donald Trump. Democrats argue the military action lacked legal authorization and risks long-term entanglement abroad, while Republicans applaud the decisive removal of a hostile regime accused of narcotics trafficking and oppression.
As Maduro’s legal proceedings unfold in U.S. federal court, the divergent Arizona reactions illustrate how foreign policy flashpoints continue to break sharply along partisan lines.
As the end of 2025 nears, the question arises: What can Americans expect in the world of energy policy in 2026?
Predicting future events where energy is concerned is always a risky enterprise. After all, if anyone could accurately foresee where, say, the Brent price for crude oil would sit a week from today, that person would soon become fabulously wealthy and never have to work another day in his or her life. But no one can actually do that because too many widely disparate factors impact where prices will head on a daily basis. This overarching theme holds true in most areas of the widely diverse energy space.
Still, just as energy details like exact future oil prices or rig count levels are impossible to know with certainty, some overarching trends are entirely foreseeable. As an example, it was entirely predictable a year ago that 2025 would become a year in which an energy policy revolution would take place. Donald Trump had been elected to a second term and was in the process of naming cabinet nominees who would lead an effort to reverse the onerous regulations and economically ruinous subsidy spending of the Biden years.
A policy revolution was entirely predictable, even though, as I wrote at the time, it would take a somewhat different form than many were expecting. There would be no replay of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” agenda of Trump’s first term mainly due to a series of intractable economic factors. Instead, we’d have a “Build, Baby, Build” revolution in which policy changes have focused on setting the conditions for a boom in energy infrastructure like pipelines, LNG export facilities, baseload power generation, major transmission projects, new and expanded mining operations, and more into place.
With business-oriented cabinet officials like Chris Wright at the Energy Department and Doug Burgum at Interior leading the way, it was easy to predict that the second Trumpian energy revolution would focus on measures that allow markets, not the dictates of central government planners, to lead the charge. The command-and-control schemes, crony capitalism, and green subsidies would be repealed or phased away. Banks and investment houses would be put on notice that their discriminatory, ESG-focused lending practices would be policed. Rather than focus their personal energy on finding ways to punish disfavored energy players, administration officials would spend their days finding ways to speed up permitting processes.
Those things and more all came about in Year One of this second Trump presidency. It has been a true policy-driven revolution.
Now, as the dawn of 2026 nears, the direction of the administration’s Year Two agenda becomes equally predictable: Consolidation of the gains made in 2025.
The ending/phasing out of the green subsidies must be maintained since they distort markets by encouraging irrational allocations of capital. The capital thrown at wind and solar will be more productively allocated to building new natural gas and nuclear baseload plants and ensuring existing coal plants stay up and running to keep America’s lights on. The capital misallocated by legacy carmakers – like Ford and GM – to their foundering EV dreams must be reallocated to making cars American consumers can afford and actually desire to own.
With global markets creating rapidly rising demand for U.S. LNG, it’s time to “Build, Baby, Build” those needed new export facilities and the pipelines needed to feed the gas into them. Those energy gains can’t be consolidated without driving into action the streamlined processes to issue the needed permits.
And then there are the mines. Regardless of how quickly their permits can be issued, America can’t have any of the pipelines, LNG facilities, power plants, AI datacenters, or transmission lines without the raw mineral materials that make them work. America can no longer afford to be held hostage to supply chains for these materials dominated by China. That means more mines, and lots of them.
The President and his people have worked overtime throughout 2025 to ensure the executive branch’s side of this policy revolution is in place. Now, Congress must act to enshrine it permanently in law. Getting that done, consolidating the gains made in 2025 into action and statutes, will dominate the energy policy agenda throughout 2026. It’s all very predictable.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) recently told Newsmax that Americans should begin feeling the economic impact of President Donald Trump’s signature tax and budget law within the next 90 days as key provisions are implemented.
Biggs made the remarks during an interview on Monday, December 22, referencing what supporters officially call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R.1), a broad tax and spending statute signed into law earlier this year.
Biggs said Americans will start seeing the tax changes “pretty quickly,” adding that the core provisions would “start spinning up in the next 90 days.”
He told the outlet that the rollout of the new tax policy would stimulate economic activity. “So you’re going to see some new things with regard to Social Security, overtime, tax on tips, and that’s going to actually cause some economic stimulus,” Biggs said.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was enacted on July 4, 2025, following passage in both the U.S. House and Senate. It includes a wide range of tax code changes, spending provisions, and policy adjustments central to the Trump administration’s domestic agenda.
The law permanently extends several individual and business income tax cuts originally enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and includes a number of deductions and tax incentives. It also makes significant changes to Medicaid eligibility requirements and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), raises the debt ceiling, and allocates funding across defense, border enforcement, and other federal priorities.
Biggs was among Arizona’s congressional Republicans who supported the bill during its floor votes. All six Republican members of Arizona’s U.S. House delegation voted in favor of the legislation when it returned to the chamber for final approval in July.
The bill passed the House on a 218-214 vote after earlier Senate approval. It then went to President Trump, who signed it into law later the same day.
Biggs’s comments come as Republican lawmakers and supporters highlight the expected timelines for implementing tax cuts and credits included in the legislation. Trump allies have repeatedly emphasized that many provisions are designed to reduce tax burdens for individuals and businesses once they take effect in 2026.
The law’s changes to federal tax rates and deductions, including those affecting child tax credits and specific income brackets, could impact Arizona households in 2026 as those provisions begin phasing in. It also includes changes to federal funding streams that intersect with state budgets, such as SNAP and Medicaid, both of which have significant participation among Arizona residents.
