Showing posts sorted by date for query STADIUM. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query STADIUM. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2026


Big Data Is a Bad Idea: Why AI Factory Farms Will Not Save Rural America

AI data centers have been added to the limited menu for economic development in marginalized US communities, but people in those communities have good reason to oppose them.


A sign on a rural Michigan road opposes a planned $7 billion data center on southeast Michigan farm land in Saline, Michigan on December 1, 2025.
(Photo by Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

John Peck
Jan 12, 2026
Common Dreams


One word—plastics. That was the golden grail that Dustin Hoffman learned about from some well-wisher in the movie The Graduate. I remember watching the film as a farm kid and thinking about the updated version I was being told by my guidance counselors—one word: computers. We are now in the midst of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and the latest mantra is: artificial intelligence. Such free advice, though, could really be a costly warning in disguise.

Granted, there is a lot of poverty in the “richest” nation on Earth, and marginalized US communities often have few choices for economic (mal) development. It becomes a twisted game of pick your own poison: supermax prison, toxic waste dump, ethanol facility, tar sands pipeline… Now, AI data centers have been added to the limited menu. Someone recently shared a map of looming AI data centers across the world. It reminded me of how a tumor spreads and Edward Abbey’s quote that “growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”



Big Tech Ramps Up Propaganda Blitz As AI Data Centers Become Toxic With Voters



US Electric Grid Heading Toward ‘Crisis’ Thanks to AI Data Centers

The fact that Big Data has targeted Rural America for its latest mastitis should be no surprise. We have lots of available land to grab, thanks to the legacy of settler colonialism and family-farm foreclosure. Back in August I remember driving past Beaver Dam, Wisconsin and watching bulldozers flattening over 800 acres along Hwy 151 and my first hunch was: data center. Sure enough, the secretive $1 billion deal with Meta was finally revealed in a November press release. Just north of Madison in the town of DeForest, Blackstone subsidiary QTS Realty Trust is aiming to build another $12 billion data center on close to 1,600 acres. And if we need to free up more land for AI, we quaint rural folks could just abandon growing real Xmas trees and force people to buy plastic ones instead, as one Fox News “expert” suggested over the holidays. Former President Joe Biden visited Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin in May 2024 to promote Microsoft’s new $3.3 billion 300+ acre AI campus on the former site of flat screen maker, Foxconn, that welcomed President Donald Trump for its groundbreaking back in 2018. Foxconn abandoned that $10 billion project and its 13,000 job promise, after getting millions in state subsidies and local tax deferrals.

The Microsoft AI complex in Mt. Pleasant will also require over 8 million gallons of water per year from Lake Michigan. We still have some clean water, though that may not last long thanks to agrochemical monocultures, CAFO manure dumping, and PFAS-laden sludge spreading. And AI certainly is thirsty—the Alliance for the Great Lakes noted in its August 2025 report that a hyperscale AI data center needs up to 365 million gallons of water to keep itself cool—that is as much water as is needed by 12,000 people! A recent investigative report by Bloomberg News found that over two-thirds of the AI data centers built since 2022 are in parts of the country already facing water stress. And it is really hard to drink data.

But is all the AI hype just another bubble about to burst? Rural communities (and public taxpayers) have been offered many “amazing” schemes in the past that ended up being just a “bait and switch”—another hollow promise.

In the Midwest we also have potential access to vast electricity (fracked natural gas, wind and solar farms, methane digesters), and relatively under-stressed high voltage grids (unlike California or Texas), though the loss of “cheaper” imported Canadian hydropower with the latest trade war could be a serious challenge. In 2023 the US had over a $2 billion electricity trade deficit vis-a-vis Canada. According to a recent Clean Wisconsin report, just two of our proposed AI data centers will require 3.9 gigawatts—1.5 times the current power demand of all 4.3 million homes in the state.

But, no worry, there are dilapidated US nuclear reactors with massive waste dumps that could be put back online such as Palisades in Michigan, despite opposition from environmental activists and family farmers. The Trump administration also just announced a $1 billion low-interest loan to reanimate Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania for the sake of AI. Until all that happens, though, regular ratepayers can expect a huge hike in their energy bills as Big Data has the market clout to siphon off what it needs first, especially as it colludes with utility monopolies. Many people in Wisconsin are already paying for $1+ billion in stranded assets—mostly defunct coal plants, as well as nuclear waste storage facilities—while utility investors continue to receive guaranteed dividends of 9-10%.

But is all the AI hype just another bubble about to burst? Rural communities (and public taxpayers) have been offered many “amazing” schemes in the past that ended up being just a “bait and switch”—another hollow promise. If we subsidize a massive data center, will the projected “market” for increasing algorithms actually come? Many within the AI industry don’t think so, and are now invoking the lessons we should have learned from the Enron scandal decades ago or the even worse sequel in the subprime mortgage-fueled financial meltdown. Corporate cheerleaders can be quite clever when it comes to inflating prices (and stocks) for goods and services that may not even exist, while hiding their massive debt obligations in a whole cascading series of shadowy shell subsidiaries and dishonest accounting shenanigans.

Many industry insiders are ringing alarm bells. “These models are being hyped up, and we’re investing more than we should,” said Daron Acemoglu, who won the 2024 Nobel Economics Prize, quoted in a recent NPR story about the current AI boom or bubble. OpenAI says it will spend $1.4 trillion on data centers over the next eight years, while Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are going to throw in another $400 billion. Meanwhile, just 3% of people who use AI now pay for it, and many are frantically trying to figure out how to turn off AI mode on their internet searches and to reject AI eavesdropping on their Zoom calls. Where is the real revenue going to come from to pay for all this AI speculation? The same NPR story notes that such a flood of leveraged capital is equal to every iPhone user on Earth forking over $250 to “enjoy” the benefits of AI—and “that’s not going to happen,” adds Paul Kedrosky, a venture capitalist who is now a research fellow at MIT’s Institute for the Digital Economy. Morgan Stanley estimates AI companies will shell out $3 trillion by 2028 for this data center buildout—but less than 50% of that money will come from them. Hmmm...

Special purpose vehicle (SPV) may sound like a fancy name for a retrofitted tractor, but that is how Big Data is creating a Potemkin Village to hide their Ponzi Scheme. Here is one example from Richland Parish, Louisiana where Meta is now building its Hyperion Data Center—a massive $27 billion project. A Wall Street outfit, Blue Owl, borrows $27 billion, using Meta’s future rent payments for a data center to back up its loan. Meta’s 20% “mortgage” on the facility gives them 100% control of the purported data crunching from the facility. This debt never shows up on Meta’s books and remains hidden from carefree investors and shallow analysts, but, like other synthetic financial instruments such as the now infamous mortgage backed security (MBS), the reality only comes home to roost when the house of cards collapses and Meta has to eventually pay off Blue Owl.

In the meantime, as the Louisiana Illuminator reports, the residents of Richland Parish (where 25% live below the poverty level) are bearing the brunt of all the real costs of having an AI factory farm. Dozens of crashes involving construction vehicles; damage to local roads; and massive future energy demands (three times that required for the entire city of New Orleans), which will entail new natural gas power plants to be built (subsidized by existing ratepayers even as fossil fuel-induced climate change floods the Louisiana delta). Beyond the initial building flurry, AI data centers are ultimately job poor. It just doesn’t take that many people to tend computers once they are built. As Meta’s VP, Brad Smith, admitted, the 250,000 square foot Hyperion data center may need 1,500 workers to build but barely 50 to operate. Beyond all the ballyhoo, the main reason a particular community is chosen to “host” one seems to be based upon the bought duplicity of elected officials and the excessive generosity of local taxpayers. Not a good cost-benefit analysis—unless you are Big Data.

And then there are the questionable kickback schemes between the suppliers of the technology and those owning the data centers. If you are maker of computer chips, would you not be tempted to fork over capital to a major buyer of your own products to ensure future demand? Nvidia just announced a $100 billion stake in OpenAI to help bankroll the data centers. In turn OpenAI signed a $300 billion deal with Oracle to actually build the AI data centers that will require Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs). OpenAI also signed a separate $6+ billion deal with former BitCoin miner, CoreWeave, which rents out internet cloud access (using Nvidia’s chips once again). This type of incestuous circular financing should raise eyebrows to anyone who studies business ethics—and perhaps remind others of how a toilet operates.

What is all this AI doing? Promoters will point to many innovations—faster screening for cancer cells, closer connection to far-flung relatives, precision application of fertilizers and pesticides, elimination of drudgery in the workplace through automation. A bright future indeed—or perhaps not?

The real issue is whether or not AI data centers are economically viable, socially appropriate, environmentally sustainable, and actually serve the public interest.

In August 2025, ProPublica reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had lost 20% of its staff devoted to food safety thanks to DOGE cuts. Inspection of food import facilities is now at a historic low even as our dependence on the rest of the world to feed us grows. But not to worry, the FDA announced in May that AI was coming to the rescue thanks to a large language model (LLM)—dubbed Elsa—that would be deployed alongside what’s left of its human staff to expedite their oversight work. Hopefully, Elsa knows melamine when it sees it. AI chatbots are also growing in popularity and available 24-7 to “talk or advise” people on all sorts of pressing issues—how to win more friends, how to cheat on this exam, how to make up fake legal opinions, even encouraging a teenager to commit suicide and suggesting to someone else that they murder their own parents.

But there is an even dirtier AI underbelly. Some have dubbed these AI slop, AI smut, and AI stazi—three 21st-century horsemen of the digital apocalypse. What is this all about? Well, a lot of these accelerating AI algorithms are actually devoted to selling “products” that many people do not want and would find objectionable, as well as providing “services” that undermine our basic freedoms. Slop (Merriam Webster’s word of 2025) is used to describe when AI generates internet content that is only meant to make money through advertising. Right now there are thousands of wannabe internet “creatives” all over the globe, watching “how-to videos” to manufacture AI social media to grab the eyeballs of US consumers. That cute puppy video you see on Instagram or that shocking “news” story you read on Facebook is not by accident—the goal is to monetize clicks per thousand (cost per mille, or CPM) where advertisers pay for how much their ad is viewed online. This is also why online content is often overly long (where is the actual recipe in this cooking blog?), since that increases ad scrolling. The average US consumer is now subject to between 6,000 and 10,000 ads per day—70% of which are online. For more on AI slop, visit: https://www.visibrain.com/blog/ai-slop-social-media.

An even worse virtual commodity is AI smut—literally algorithms creating pornography. This perverted version of AI scraps the internet for images (high school yearbooks, red carpet fashion shows, popular music concerts, street cam footage, etc.) and then uses “face swap” programs to create personalized hardcore rubbish. There is little if any accountability for this theft of public images and violation of personal privacy—at best those involved are “shamed” into taking down their AI sites after being exposed due to fears of liability and prosecution for child abuse. But that has hardly stopped this seedy AI subsector. Can you imagine your face or image being put into such a lucrative sexploitative scenario without your permission? At this point, there are hardly any internet police walking the beat in the virtual AI world. We don’t even have the right to be forgotten on the internet.

Which brings us to AI stazi—the updated version of the Cold War-era East German secret police. University of Wisconsin Madison just announced the creation of a College of Computing and Artificial Intelligence (CAI), in part thanks to a $140 million donation from Cisco. Few Bucky Badger fans know that 30 years ago they were used as guinea pigs while cheering at Camp Randall Stadium to help create facial recognition technology through a UW-Madison grant from the Department of Defense Applied Research Agency (DARPA). Visitors to the UW campus today will no doubt “enjoy” the automated license plate readers (ALRPs) owned by Flock Safety. According to an August 2025 Wisconsin Examiner expose, there are hundreds of Flock cameras across the state in use by law enforcement agencies, including Wisconsin county sheriff departments with active 287(g) cooperation agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. No warrant is needed for law enforcement agencies to browse the national Flock database. In fact, agents have used Flock to track peaceful protesters, spy on spouses, or just stalk people they don’t like. To see where Flock cameras are near you, visit: www.deflock.me. Of course, Flock Security has outsourced its AI programming to cheaper (and more secure?) Filipino contractors. Similar AI spying networks such as Pegasus have been widely exposed and have become “bread and butter” for authoritarian regimes from Israel to Saudi Arabia. China and Russia have their own versions (Skynet, SORM, etc.). Thanks to the cozy relationship between Trump and Peter Thiel, the US-based AI mercenary outfit, Palantir, is now being redeployed for domestic surveillance—first revealed by Edward Snowden back in 2017.

The latest executive bluster from Trump is that states’ rights are out the window when it comes to regulating AI data centers—such federal preemption of local democratic control is part of the larger neoliberal “race to the bottom” forced-trade agenda. But the cat is already out of the bag as dozens of communities have successfully blocked AI data center projects and others are poised to do the same based upon their winning strategies. Better yet, this is a bipartisan grassroots organizing issue!

What is the best way to keep out an AI factory farm? No non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)! These are massive development schemes that could not exist without the approval and support of elected officials, so any agreement should not be secret. They can hardly claim to be providing a public good if they are not subject to transparency and oversight. No sweetheart deals! Big Data is among the wealthiest sectors of our current economy and does not need or deserve subsidies, discounted electric rates, tax increment financing, property tax holidays, or other incentives. It is a classic move of crony capitalism to privatize the benefits and socialize the costs. No regulatory loopholes! Given their huge demands for land, water, and energy, Big Data should not be allowed to cut legal corners and needs to follow all the rules of any other normal enterprise—full liability coverage, no special economic zones, consideration of cumulative impacts, protections for ratepayers, no unregulated toxic pollution or illegal water transfer in violation of the Clean Water Act or the Great Lakes Compact, etc. How much water your data center demands is hardly a “trade secret.”

And most important, don’t let Big Data boosters belittle your legitimate concerns as “neo-Luddite!” Everyone uses technology—even the Amish. The real issue is whether or not AI data centers are economically viable, socially appropriate, environmentally sustainable, and actually serve the public interest. People have good reasons to be wary and oppose them on all those fronts.

For more info, checkout: Big Tech Unchecked: A Toolkit for Community Action

As well as the North Star Data Center Policy Toolkit


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


John Peck
John E. Peck is the executive director of Family Farm Defenders.

Monday, January 12, 2026

Somalia annuls all agreements with UAE, including port deals


Residents wave Somali flags as they attend a rally denouncing Israel’s recent announcement recognizing the breakaway Somaliland region at Mogadishu Stadium in Mogadishu. (File/AFP)

Reuters
January 12, 2026

“The Council of Ministers has annulled all agreements concluded with the United Arab Emirates,” a statement from Somalia’s Council of ​Ministers said

MOGADISHU: Somalia’s government ​said on Monday that it was annulling all agreements with the United Arab Emirates, including port deals and defense and ‌security cooperation, ‌citing ‌evidence ⁠the UAE ​had ‌undermined its national sovereignty.

“The Council of Ministers has annulled all agreements concluded with the United Arab Emirates, ⁠including those involving federal governmental ‌institutions, affiliated entities, and ‍regional administrations ‍operating within the territory ‍of the Federal Republic of Somalia,” a statement from Somalia’s Council of ​Ministers said.

“This decision applies to all agreements ⁠and partnerships relating to the ports of Berbera, Bosaso, and Kismayo ... (and) bilateral security and defense cooperation agreements,” the statement added.

There was no immediate comment from UAE authorities.

Monday, January 05, 2026

Geometry shapes life



Embryo geometry has to be firm—without it, cells would be all over the map



Institute of Science and Technology Austria

Mishra and Li looking for tiny striped zebrafish hiding behind seagrass 

image: 

Postdoc collaboration at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA). ISTA’s Nikhil Mishra and Yuting Irene Li are looking for tiny striped zebrafish hiding behind seagrass. 

view more 

Credit: © ISTA




Life begins with a single fertilized cell that gradually transforms into a multicellular organism. This process requires precise coordination; otherwise, the embryo could develop serious complications. Scientists at ISTA have now demonstrated that the zebrafish eggs, in particular their curvature, might be the instruction manual that keeps cell division on schedule and activates the appropriate genes in a patterned manner to direct correct cell fate acquisition. These insights, published in Nature Physics, could help improve the accuracy of embryo assessments in IVF.

Nikhil Mishra opens a heavy door that leads into a unique room. Countless transparent boxes are stored on racks swarming with small striped fish. The water refracts through the containers, casting a bluish hue across the room. You could almost believe you were in the middle of the sea, and the gentle lapping of the water and the cozy warmth of 27 °C reinforce this feeling. 

Mishra takes one of the boxes from the rack and points at a zebrafish.

“The zebrafish is an ideal organism for studying the earliest steps of development,” he explains passionately. “Their embryos are fertilized outside the mother, which means we can easily collect and study them—often hundreds at a time. They are also naturally transparent, so we can literally watch their cells divide, move, and change in real time.”

From one cell to many

Life begins with a single fertilized egg cell, called the zygote, which begins to divide repeatedly. First into two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. This process is very similar across most species, including in humans. “Initially, these divisions happen quickly and without the cells taking on special roles. But soon, patterns begin to emerge: some cells divide more slowly, some start activating different genes, and others move to new positions,” Mishra says.

These early differences mark the first steps of ‘symmetry-breaking,’ when the embryo stops being uniform and starts organizing itself. Over time, groups of cells specialize into the three major layers that will form all tissues and organs. “From what begins as a simple, seemingly identical cluster of cells, a structured and patterned embryo gradually takes shape—laying the foundation for the entire body plan.”

A knowledge gap

In its early stages, the zygote depends on information provided by the mother. Only after reaching a developmental milestone called the midblastula extension (MBT) does the embryo begin to develop independently. At that point, the embryo needs to activate the appropriate genes at the right times in the correct cells. But how does it determine when and where to activate its genes? This is a fundamental question and a major knowledge gap that Mishra and the Heisenberg group at ISTA are investigating. However, they are not the only ones exploring this mystery.  

ISTA’s Hannezo group is also attempting to understand how the position and timing of individual cell behavior are coordinated. These two research teams have been collaborating for some time. In particular, Yuting Irene Li, a postdoc in the Hannezo group, has greatly aided Mishra’s research with valuable expertise in theoretical physics, mathematical modeling, and statistical approaches to complex biological systems.

Geometry – the instruction manual

This collaborative research tested a largely ignored hypothesis—that the embryo’s geometry drives its development. The ISTA scientists demonstrated that the embryo “reads” and correctly interprets the zygote’s geometry during the initial few minutes of its existence. When the researchers manipulated the early embryo geometry, it changed how cells developed later.

Think of the zygote’s geometry as an instruction manual that the embryo must read and follow as it patterns itself. If there is an error in that manual or the embryo does not read it correctly, it could lead to major problems—imagine having an intestine where your head should be.

Like a stadium wave

Mishra explains that geometry sets off a series of highly consequential events causing cells to divide asymmetrically in an organized manner and thereby creating a gradient of cell size. These size differences create a gradient of cell cycle periods; smaller cells take longer to complete one cycle and divide into two cells.

Within the transparent embryo, this gradient is clearly visible under a microscope. Cells follow a repeating cycle, almost like a tiny internal clock, ticking through division and rest. “This repeating cycle, known as oscillation, varies slightly for each cell based on its size, which is determined by the fertilized egg’s geometry,” explains Li, an expert in oscillations. “Consequently, these varied ‘clocks’ align in a sweeping pattern across the embryo. What you see is a mitotic phase wave—a wave formed by different cells reaching the ‘division moment’ of their internal clocks one after another.”

Improving IVF outcomes

For the ISTA scientists, the next step is to determine how universal these principles are. If similar geometric rules are also found in mammals—and especially in humans—the implications could be very significant. This is relevant as more and more people turn to assisted reproductive technologies like IVF. Even for young, healthy individuals, fewer than half of IVF embryos reach the stage where they can be implanted and lead to viable pregnancies.

“Many embryos that fail during development show abnormalities in early division patterns or in how they activate their genes but we still don’t fully understand why. Our work suggests that the geometry of the early embryo—the physical shape and layout of its first cells—may play an important role in keeping development on track,” Mishra concludes.

In the long run, understanding these principles could help recognize early geometric “warning signs” in IVF embryos and perhaps design ways to correct or compensate for them. This could eventually contribute to more reliable embryo assessment and improved IVF outcomes.

-

Information on animal studies

To better understand fundamental processes, for example, in the fields of neuroscience, immunology, or genetics, the use of animals in research is indispensable. No other methods, such as in silico models, can serve as an alternative. The animals are raised, kept, and treated according to strict regulations.

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

All UN Security Council Members Except US Join Somalia in Condemning Israel’s Recognition of Somaliland

Somalia’s UN ambassador said Israel plans to “relocate the Palestinian population from Gaza to the northwestern region of Somalia,” and warned that “this utter disdain for law and morality must be stopped now.”


Abukar Osman, Somalia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, spoke at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on December 29, 2025.
(Photo: screenshot)

Julia Conley
Dec 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Monday regarding Israel’s recognition of the breakaway region of Somaliland, 14 of 15 member states joined Somalia’s permanent representative to the UN in condemning what the ambassador called an “act of aggression”—and at least one denounced the Trump administration’s defense of Israel’s move.

The emergency summit was called days after Israel announced its formal recognition of the region, which declared independence in 1991 after a civil war, but which has not been acknowledged by any other country. Somalia continues to claim Somaliland as part of the country while the region’s leaders say the state is the successor to the former British protectorate.

Israel announced its decision months after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with leaders in Somaliland about a potential deal to trade formal recognition of the region for help with illegally deporting Palestinians from Gaza, and as Israeli policy advisers have argued that Somaliland could be used as a base for military operations against the Houthis in Yemen.

Despite evidence that Israel formally acknowledged Somaliland to further its own military and territorial interests, Israeli Deputy Permanent Representative Jonathan Miller arrived at the meeting Monday with the aim of explaining the “historical context” for the country’s decision.

“Entire cities were destroyed,” said Miller. “Civilians were deliberately targeted. These crimes are now widely recognized as a genocide... Israel’s then-acting permanent representative, Yohanan Bein, submitted this letter to this very council warning of grave human rights violations in Somalia... That history provides essential context for the discussion surrounding Israel’s recognition of Somaliland today.”

Abukar Dahir Osman, Somalia’s permanent representative to the UN, suggested Miller’s comments only added insult to injury, considering Israel has been assaulting Gaza for more than two years—with attacks continuing despite a “ceasefire”—and has killed more than 71,000 Palestinians in what numerous human rights groups and experts have called a genocide.

“If we want to talk about genocide, it’s Israel that’s committed this to our own eyes every day,” said Osman. “[Miller] represents a government that killed more than 70,000 people. Civilians, including children, women, elderly, doctors and other health workers, and patients in hospitals. Destroying infrastructures, deliberately starving people of Gaza.”

“To come to this place, and lecture us [on] humanity and genocide and human rights and independence and democracy. And we know what you’re doing on a daily basis,” said Osman. “It’s just an insult.”



Warning that the recognition of the breakaway region could destabilize Somalia as well as the broader Horn of Africa, the ambassador also expressed concern that Israel plans to “relocate the Palestinian population from Gaza to the northwestern region of Somalia.”

“This utter disdain for law and morality must be stopped now,” said Osman.

Other representatives expressed similar outrage, with the UN envoy for the 22-member Arab League, Maged Abdelfattah Abdelaziz, saying the group would reject “any measures arising from this illegitimate recognition aimed at facilitating forced displacement of the Palestinian people, or exploiting northern Somali ports to establish military bases.”

Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon, deputy UN ambassador for Pakistan, said Israel’s move following its previous comments on potentially deporting Palestinians to Somaliland was “deeply troubling.”

Tammy Bruce, who was sworn in Monday as deputy US representative to the United Nations, was alone in backing Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, though she noted that US policy on the region has not changed.

“Israel has the same right to conduct diplomatic relations as any other sovereign state,” said Bruce. “Earlier this year, several countries, including members of this council, made the unilateral decision to recognize a nonexistent Palestinian state. And yet, no emergency meeting was called to express this council’s outrage.”

More than 150 countries, including a number of major US allies, have recognized Palestinian statehood, with nearly two dozen governments announcing their recognition since Israel began its assault on Gaza in 2023.

Samuel Zbogar, Slovenia’s UN ambassador, pushed back against Bruce’s comparison.

“Slovenia recognized Palestine as an independent state,” he said. “We did so in response to undeniable right of Palestinian people to self-determination. Palestine is not part of any state. It is an illegally occupied territory as declared by the [International Court of Justice], among others. Palestine is also an observer state in this organization.”

“Somaliland, on the other hand, is part of a UN member state and recognizing it goes against Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter,” he said.

On Tuesday, protests erupted in cities across Somalia, including the capital of Mogadishu, with demonstrators calling for national unity.


Somalis rally against Israel’s world-first recognition of Somaliland

Demonstrations sweep Somalia as the government seeks global diplomatic support.


Protesters gather at Mogadishu Stadium to denounce Israel's recognition of Somaliland, December 28, 2025 [Hassan Ali Elmi/AFP]



By Faisal Ali
On 30 Dec 2025
AL JAZEERA

Protests have erupted across Somalia following Israel’s formal world-first recognition of the breakaway region of Somaliland, with demonstrators taking to the streets in multiple cities, including the capital, Mogadishu.

On Tuesday morning, large crowds gathered at locations including Mogadishu’s main football stadium and around the city’s airport, where protesters waved Somali flags and chanted slogans calling for national unity.

The demonstrations, which also took place in Baidoa, Dhusamareb, Las Anod, Hobyo and Somalia’s northeastern regions, came as President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud travelled to Istanbul for talks with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan following a stop in neighbouring Djibouti.

Somalia and Turkiye have close political and security ties, with Ankara emerging as a regional rival to Israel in recent months.

Small gatherings also took place in Borama, a city in western Somaliland, where the population has appeared more ambivalent about separation from Somalia, to express opposition.

Somaliland unilaterally declared independence in 1991 following a civil war, but has failed to gain international recognition despite maintaining its own currency, passport and army.

Somaliland’s leaders say the state is the successor to the former British protectorate, which voluntarily merged with Italian Somaliland and has now reclaimed its independence. Somalia continues to claim Somaliland as part of its territory and does not recognise its independence.



Israel became the first and only country to formally recognise it as a sovereign state last Friday, describing the move as being in the spirit of the Abraham Accords that normalised ties between Israel and several Arab nations.

President Mohamud urged Somaliland’s leadership over the weekend to reverse the decision, warning that its territory, overlooking the strategic gateway to the Red Sea, must not be used as a base for targeting other nations.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have said any Israeli presence in Somaliland would be considered “a military target for our armed forces”.

Shortly after Somaliland announced mutual recognition with Israel on Friday, President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi said the move “is not a threat, not an act of hostility” towards any state, and warned that Somalia’s insistence on unified institutions risks “prolonging divisions rather than healing” them.

The widespread public anger in Somalia reflects a rare show of political unity, where leaders across the spectrum have condemned Israel’s decision.

On Monday, the National Consultative Council — chaired by Mohamud and including the prime minister, federal state presidents and regional governors — rejected the recognition as an “illegal step” that threatens regional security stretching from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

Four federal member states issued coordinated statements over the weekend denouncing the move. However, Puntland and Jubbaland — both of which recently announced their withdrawal from Somalia’s federal system over electoral and constitutional disputes — have remained silent.




Most United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members slammed Israel’s recognition of Somaliland at a meeting convened on Monday in response to the move, which several countries said may also have serious implications for Palestinians in Gaza.

The United States was the only member of the 15-member body not to condemn Israel’s formal recognition at the emergency meeting in New York on Monday, although it said its own position on Somaliland had not changed.

Somalia’s UN ambassador, Abu Bakr Dahir Osman, warned that the recognition “aims to promote the fragmentation of Somalia” and raised concerns it could facilitate the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza to northwestern Somalia, a fear echoed by several other nations.

“This utter disdain for law and morality must be stopped now,” he said.

US deputy representative Tammy Bruce told the council that “Israel has the same right to establish diplomatic relations as any other sovereign state”, though she added Washington had made “no announcement” regarding its own recognition of Somaliland.

Israel’s deputy UN ambassador, Jonathan Miller, defended the decision as “not a hostile step toward Somalia” and made the case to the UNSC for other countries to follow its lead.

Somalia’s state minister for foreign affairs, Ali Omar, thanked UNSC members for their “clear and principled” stance on the issue in a post on X.


Why Israel’s ‘recognition’ of Somaliland is fuelling fears of Palestinian resettlement

Any policy advocating the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza will constitute a clear violation of the commitments made under the Gaza peace plan, analysts say.


TRT WORLD
Kazim Alam
2 hours ago


Israel's decision on December 26 to become the first country to formally recognise the separatist entity of Somaliland as an “independent and sovereign state” has triggered widespread international outrage, deepening fears that it is part of a strategy to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza.

Even though it seceded from Somalia in 1991, Somaliland is recognised by neither the African Union nor the UN as an independent state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement, made during a phone call with Somaliland's self-proclaimed president Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, was framed as expanding cooperation in agriculture, health and technology.

Yet the move has been widely condemned as a blatant violation of Somalia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, with many linking it directly to Israel's ongoing aggression in Gaza.

The Arab League, African Union, Egypt, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and numerous other states have rejected the recognition, explicitly warning that it could facilitate the forced relocation of Palestinians, a policy critics describe as ethnic cleansing.

At a UN Security Council briefing on Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, Pakistan called Tel Aviv’s act “deeply troubling”, given that Israeli officials have previously referred to the territory as a “destination for the deportation of Palestinian people, especially from Gaza”. 
RelatedTRT World - MSF accuses Israel of 'weaponising' aid as Gaza medical crisis persists despite truce


Yunus Turhan, a post-doctoral researcher at Harvard University’s African Studies Center, frames Israel's action as driven by dangerous strategic motives tied to Gaza.

“Israel’s decision to recognise Somaliland, despite receiving criticism from across the African continent and beyond, can be assessed within the framework of strategic calculations,” Turhan tells TRT World.

“In the short term, this move may be linked to ongoing discussions concerning forced population transfer scenarios in the context of Gaza, with Somaliland potentially being considered as one such option,” he says.

He points out that the Netanyahu government has been exploring Somaliland as an alternative destination for Palestinians.

Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Libya and Indonesia are some of the other countries that Israel has reportedly approached for the resettlement of about two million Palestinians uprooted by the war in Gaza.

Israel’s plans have faced global criticism, and even Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan explicitly states that no one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return.

Turhan says that any policy advocating the forced relocation of Palestinians will constitute a clear violation of the commitments endorsed during the first phase of the peace plan.

But the fact remains that Israel has shown little regard for peace agreements.

Since the announcement of a ceasefire on October 10, Tel Aviv has repeatedly violated the truce, killing more than 400 Palestinians.

“Israel has repeatedly deviated from such commitments in the past, and the Somaliland issue should therefore be interpreted as presenting Gazans, already exhausted by prolonged warfare, with an almost impossible choice,” he says.

Any relocation of Palestinians from Gaza will only exacerbate an already catastrophic humanitarian situation, likely resulting in additional casualties, he adds.


RelatedTRT World - Israel launches renewed air strikes across Gaza, violating ceasefire



According to Kaan Devecioglu, the coordinator for North and East African Studies at the Ankara-based think tank ORSAM, Israel’s recent discourse on “permanent security control” in Gaza cannot be reduced to a single official document establishing a direct intent-policy link with allegations of forced displacement or ethnic cleansing.

“Nevertheless, developments on the ground, including the confinement of the population to specific areas, the large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure, and debates over plans to ‘concentrate’ the population, significantly reinforce these concerns,” he tells TRT World.

Devecioglu says the ongoing discourse threatens the Palestinians’ right to self-determination in two fundamental ways.

First, the possibility of forced displacement that weakens the people’s de facto link to their land would render any future political settlement “demographically and spatially” meaningless, he says.

Second, determining Gaza’s political future through the military and political decisions of external powers, rather than through local will, runs counter to the very essence of self-determination, he adds.

A threat to regional stability

The recognition of Somaliland’s sovereignty also advances Israel's military ambitions in the Red Sea, according to analysts.

Turhan says Israel’s engagement with Somaliland will provide it with strategic access to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a 32-kilometre-wide body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Africa, connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden, a key maritime route.

“This access would enable Tel Aviv to conduct discreet intelligence, surveillance, and security operations along a critical global maritime corridor without the need for large-scale military deployment,” he says.

Devecioglu says Israel’s attempt to complement its military objectives against the Houthis in Yemen by expanding access in the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden corridor puts regional stability at risk.

He says that Israel’s recognition of a separatist entity risks encouraging the redrawing of borders in Africa through unilateral secession.

“If the African Union’s long-standing principle of preserving existing borders were to erode, pressures for chain-reaction secessionism could emerge... This would increase the risk of internal conflict across fragile states,” he says.

Turhan echoes this view, noting that Israel’s unilateral act of recognition threatens Africa’s political integrity: The move can spur more than 30 active separatist movements in 27 African countries, he says.

In early 2023, violent clashes between two major clans and the Somaliland administration resulted in the de facto separation of significant portions of three eastern provinces, he says.

These clans subsequently established a new regional administration integrated into the Federal Republic of Somalia, known as the Northeastern State of Somalia, which now exercises de facto control over nearly half of the territory commonly referred to as Somaliland, Turhan adds.

“Israel’s recognition largely overlooks these on-the-ground realities.”

SOURCE:TRT World


Monday, December 29, 2025


ACT OF WAR

Trump says US destroyed dock used by Venezuelan drug traffickers

President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States had destroyed a docking facility used by alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers, marking what appears to be the first land strike in Washington’s expanding pressure campaign on Caracas.


Issued on: 30/12/2025 
By: FRANCE 24

The United States has hit and destroyed a docking area for alleged Venezuela drug boats, President Donald Trump said Monday, in what could amount to the first land strike of the military campaign against trafficking from Latin America.

The US leader's confirmation of the incident comes as he ramps up a pressure campaign against Venezuela's leftist President Nicolas Maduro, who has accused Trump of seeking regime change.

"There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs," he told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida as he hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"So we hit all the boats and now we hit the area, it's the implementation area, that's where they implement. And that is no longer around."


The US leader would not say if it was a military or CIA operation or where the strike occurred, saying only that it was "along the shore."

Asked if he had spoken to Maduro recently, following an earlier phone call in November, Trump said they had talked "pretty recently" but said that "nothing much comes out of it."

Trump had been asked to elaborate on apparent throwaway comments he made in a radio interview broadcast Friday that seemed to mention a land strike for the first time.

"They have a big plant or a big facility where they send, you know, where the ships come from," Trump told billionaire supporter John Catsimatidis on the WABC radio station in New York.

"Two nights ago we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard."

Trump did not say in the interview where the facility was located or give any other details.

There has been no official comment from the Venezuelan government.

The Pentagon earlier referred questions to the White House. The White House did not respond to requests for comment from AFP.

READ MORETrump refuses to rule out war with Venezuela as US sanctions Maduro family members

Trump has been threatening for weeks that ground strikes on drug cartels in the region would start "soon," but this is the first apparent example.
Fresh US strike in Pacific

US forces have also carried out numerous strikes in both the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September, targeting what Washington says are drug-smuggling boats.

The administration has provided no evidence that the targeted boats were involved in drug trafficking, however, prompting debate about the legality of these operations.

International law experts and rights groups say the strikes likely amount to extrajudicial killings, a charge that Washington denies.

READ MOREVenezuela accuses US of 'greatest extortion in history' at UN over naval blockade

After Trump spoke Monday, the US military announced on X that it had carried out another deadly strike on a boat in the Eastern Pacific, killing two and bringing the total killed in the maritime campaign to at least 107.


It did not specify where exactly the strike took place.

The Trump administration has been ramping up pressure on Maduro, accusing the Venezuelan leader of running a drug cartel himself and imposing an oil tanker blockade.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Trump says US "hit docks" in Venezuela

Trump says US
Trump says US Navy "hit docks" in Venezuela. / bne IntelliNews
By bne IntelliNews December 29, 2025

US President Donald Trump confirmed American forces destroyed a docking area for alleged Venezuelan drug boats in what could represent the first land strike of the military campaign against Latin American trafficking, Trump stated on December 29.

"There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs," Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida whilst hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The president did not specify the nature of the facility, and his administration has not yet commented on the attack. If confirmed, it would be the first land attack in an anti-drug campaign that has so far been conducted in the international waters of the Caribbean.

"So we hit all the boats and now we hit the area, it's the implementation area, that's where they implement. And that is no longer around."

Trump declined to specify whether it was a military or CIA operation or where the strike occurred, stating only that it was "along the shore".

Asked if he had spoken recently to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro following an earlier telephone call in November, Trump stated they had talked "pretty recently" but "nothing much comes out of it".

Following Trump's comments, the US Navy X account wrote, "@USNavy sailors remain forward‑deployed in the Caribbean, sustaining nonstop vigilance to protect the homeland day and night," but failed to add details following Trump's comments.

“The U.S. military is the most lethal and decisive fighting force in the world. The increased U.S. military presence in the Caribbean deters cartels and transnational criminals and strengthens security and prosperity for our homeland and our neighbours in the Western Hemisphere,” US Hegseth published on his X social media account.

For several weeks, Trump has been warning that as part of his pressure campaign against the Nicolás Maduro administration, which has involved the destruction of some thirty vessels and the death of more than 100 of their occupants, Washington was going to start attacking targets on land.

US officials quoted by The New York Times said the president was referring to a drug production facility in Venezuela and specified that it was destroyed last week, without elaborating.

Since the summer, the US has maintained a large air and naval deployment in the Caribbean, near Venezuelan waters, which it claims is aimed at combating drug trafficking, but which Caracas interprets as "threats" and an attempt to bring about regime change.

Tensions escalated after Trump announced a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers travelling to and from the South American country, and the seizure of two ships carrying Venezuelan crude in recent weeks.


From Powell to Venezuela: The High Cost of Evidence-Free Escalation


We are witnessing the reemergence of a dangerous repetition: one where the pattern of assertion becomes the prelude to action, and where action can lead to irreversible consequences.



US Secretary of State Colin Powell holds a vial representing the small amount of Anthrax that closed the US Senate in 2002 during his address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003 in New York City.
(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Angel Gomez
Dec 29, 2025
Common Dreams

In the annals of modern international relations, few moments carry as heavy a legacy as the speech given by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003. With solemn authority, Powell presented what he called “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence” regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The world watched. The Security Council listened. The invasion of Iraq soon followed.

Yet nearly every core assertion Powell made that day collapsed under post-war scrutiny. Iraq, it turned out, had no active WMD program. The biological labs, the chemical weapons, the nuclear revival—none existed. The damage, however, had been done: hundreds of thousands of lives lost, regional instability that persists two decades later, and a critical blow to the credibility of the international system.

The latest fact-checking report on statements made by the US ambassador to the United Nations at the Security Council emergency meeting on December 23, 2025 evokes Powell’s fateful moment with uncomfortable clarity. Assertions regarding Venezuela—about narco-terrorism networks, stolen oil, and naval interdictions—were advanced with the same kind of urgency and confidence that once shaped the Iraq invasion narrative. But just like 2003, these claims are not being matched by publicly verifiable evidence.
The Dangerous Shortcut from Assertion to Action

At the center of the current controversy is the claim that Venezuelan oil revenues finance a powerful criminal entity known as the “Cartel de los Soles.” Yet no evidentiary chain has been produced to establish this link: no verifiable financial tracing, no adjudicated findings, and no independent corroboration by multilateral investigative bodies. Even UN human-rights experts have questioned the coherence and existence of the cartel as a unified organization.

What the 2003 Iraq experience makes painfully clear is that institutional credibility depends on the ability to separate fact from political fiction.

Equally troubling is the claim that this alleged cartel poses a major narcotics or terrorist threat to the United States. The US Drug Enforcement Administration’s own 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment identifies Mexican transnational criminal organizations—not Venezuelan entities—as the principal threat. The Venezuelan organization does not even appear in the assessment.

Assertions have also been used to justify naval interdictions—military actions that, in legal terms, dangerously approach the definition of a blockade. But UN experts have been clear: Unilateral sanctions do not confer a right to enforce them through armed action. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Security Council or justified in self-defense under Article 51. Neither condition has been met.

Finally, the idea that Venezuelan oil is “stolen” US property collapses under legal scrutiny. Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976. While disputes over contractual terms and compensation have existed, these have historically been handled through arbitration and diplomacy—not force. No international court has ruled these oil shipments to be stolen under law.

Repeating the Iraq Mistake—This Time at Sea

What the 2003 Iraq experience makes painfully clear is that institutional credibility depends on the ability to separate fact from political fiction. Colin Powell’s posthumous regret—that his speech was a “blot” on his record—remains a chilling reminder that when unverified intelligence is used as justification for coercive action, the cost is not borne by the speaker, but by the people affected on the ground.

The December 2025 Security Council meeting reminds us how dangerous it is when urgency displaces evidence, as happened in Iraq in 2003. Unverified assertions create policy momentum. That momentum can foreclose diplomacy, manufacture inevitability, and normalize coercive actions like blockades or seizures—justified not through law, but through narrative inertia.
The Need for Procedural Rigor and Accountability

For policy analysts and scholars of international relations, this moment demands clarity. We are not debating ideology or even the internal legitimacy of a foreign government. The question is one of process: Do the claims being made meet minimum evidentiary thresholds before they are used to rationalize actions with international consequences?

Especially when coercive measures—economic or military—are on the table, the evidentiary bar must be high, not symbolic.

The UN Security Council’s authority rests not just on its legal charter, but on its credibility as a deliberative body. When that credibility is weakened by unsourced or politically convenient assertions, the council itself becomes a platform for escalation—not prevention.

The lesson from Iraq is not rhetorical—it is institutional. Intelligence must not be permitted to morph into justification before it becomes verification. Assertions, no matter how confidently delivered, are not evidence. When the international system forgets that distinction, the consequences are paid in blood and legitimacy.
Conclusion: Proof Before Policy

It is not enough to feel certain. Policy must be grounded in demonstrable truth. Especially when coercive measures—economic or military—are on the table, the evidentiary bar must be high, not symbolic.

We are witnessing the reemergence of a dangerous repetition: one where the pattern of assertion becomes the prelude to action, and where action can lead to irreversible consequences. Whether in Baghdad or Caracas, this is a pattern we cannot afford to repeat.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Angel Gomez
Mr. Angel Gomez is a researcher specializing in the societal impact of government policies. He has a background in psychoanalytical anthropology and general sciences.
Full Bio >


Explainer: Why Chevron still operates in Venezuela despite US sanctions

FILE - This April 21, 2008 file photo shows a Chevron flag flying over the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California.
Copyright Ben Margot/AP

By Una Hajdari
Published on 

Chevron’s continued presence in Venezuela looks like an anomaly amid intensifying US sanctions. In fact, the contradiction is rooted in selective enforcement to maintain leverage over Caracas, as well as decades of oil politics.

The United States has spent years tightening sanctions on Venezuela, attempting to choke off the oil revenues that sustain President Nicolás Maduro’s government.

Washington has imposed sweeping restrictions on Venezuela’s state oil industry, threatened to seize or block tankers carrying the South American country's distinctive heavy crude and warned companies around the world against doing business with Caracas.

In early December, the US seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, the first such seizure tied to Venezuelan oil under the current pressure campaign.

The vessel involved, widely reported as the Skipper, added a geopolitical risk premium to oil markets and drew sharp condemnation from Caracas as “theft”.

Washington has since seized a second oil tanker east of Barbados. US authorities are also actively pursuing a third tanker linked to Venezuela that attempted to evade boarding and is under a judicial seizure order.

Officials say the vessel is part of a so-called shadow or ghost fleet used to bypass sanctions, and if captured the US intends to retain the ship and its cargo.

Yet amid this near-total blockade, one American oil major continues to operate inside the country: Chevron.

The apparent contradiction has fueled accusations of hypocrisy and confusion over how US sanctions are applied. In reality, Chevron’s presence in Venezuela highlights the underlying causes of Washington’s fraught relationship with the country and helps illuminate the background to the latest escalation.

Once the largest oil exporter in the world

Venezuela’s rise to prominence began with early 20th-century oil discoveries that made it a global exporter by the 1940s, with successive governments negotiating terms with foreign firms until PDVSA’s creation in 1976 formalised state control.

At the start of the 20th century, Venezuela was a poor, agrarian country on the margins of the global economy. That changed abruptly in the 1910s and 1920s, when vast oil reserves were discovered beneath Lake Maracaibo and the eastern plains, triggering a rush of foreign investment led by US and European companies.

By the interwar years, global oil majors — including predecessors of Chevron, Shell and Exxon — dominated Venezuela’s oil sector. The Venezuelan state, weak and authoritarian under military strongmen such as Juan Vicente Gómez, offered generous concessions in exchange for royalties and taxes. Oil revenues quickly eclipsed agriculture, transforming Venezuela into one of the world’s leading exporters by the 1940s.

Under President Isaías Medina Angarita, Venezuela reformed its oil sector without rupturing relations with the United States, raising taxes on foreign companies through negotiated changes that preserved production and investment. A pro-western moderniser who aligned Venezuela with the Allied war effort and cut ties with the Axis powers during the Second World War, Medina was nonetheless overthrown in 1945 — a move Washington did not actively oppose or intervene to prevent.

 President Isaías Medina Angarita shares a laugh with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, 20 Jan, 1944, during a visit to Washington. George R. Skadding/AP

First wave of Western-led nationalisation

Venezuela’s repeated military coups in the first half of the 20th century entrenched dependence on foreign oil companies, who relied on oil for revenue and stability, while the end of military rule after 1958 created the political stability that ultimately made nationalisation possible.

During the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez, whose economic plan, "La Gran Venezuela", called for the nationalization of the oil industry, Venezuela officially nationalized its oil industry on 1 January 1976 at the site of Zumaque oilwell 1. This was the birth of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. or PDVSA.

Unlike some nationalisations elsewhere, this was initially seen as a technocratic success, since PDVSA was run by Western-trained managers, reinvested profits and maintained close ties with international markets.

President Carlos Andres Perez is surrounded by well-wishers following New Year's Day ceremonies in which the state took possession of Venezuela's national oil industry. Anonymous/AP1976

For two decades, PDVSA became one of the most respected national oil companies globally. It expanded refining capacity abroad, including in the United States, and kept production high. Venezuela remained a reliable supplier, and foreign firms continued to operate through partnerships and service contracts.

Mismanagement and decline in oil prices

By the 1980s and 1990s, however, the cracks widened. Oil prices fell, debt rose, and economic mismanagement eroded living standards. The political system — dominated by two centrist parties — lost legitimacy, accused of corruption and elite capture of oil wealth.

It was in this context that Hugo Chávez, a former army officer who had led a failed coup attempt, emerged as a national figure. He channelled widespread anger at inequality, foreign influence and the perceived betrayal of Venezuela’s oil riches.

 Chavez, left with Under-Secretary of the Organization of American States Christopher Thomas in the presidential house La Casona in Caracas, Monday, July 26, 1999. Anonymous/AP1999

Chávez and the US

For much of Chávez’s presidency, US oil companies including Chevron and ExxonMobil operated openly in Venezuela, supplying US refineries with heavy crude even as political relations deteriorated.

In the 2006-07 period, Chávez ordered all foreign oil companies operating in the Orinoco Belt to convert their projects into majority state-owned joint ventures with PDVSA holding at least 60%.

Companies that accepted stayed on under worse terms, and companies that refused were effectively pushed out. ExxonMobil refused the new terms, its assets were nationalised and Exxon exited Venezuela and later won arbitration cases against the Venezuelan state.

ConocoPhillips also refused the new terms, its assets were seized and the company exited, and it also filed major international arbitration and largely won.

Chevron accepted renegotiation, stayed in Venezuela throughout Chávez’s presidency and beyond, operating minority stakes under PDVSA control.

US sanctions during the Chávez years were limited and targeted, focusing mainly on arms restrictions and a small number of individuals accused of illicit activity, rather than the economy as a whole.

 In this Aug. 19, 2008 file photo, National Guard soldiers patrol outside the CEMEX plant in Pertigalete, Venezuela. Anonymous/AP2008

US tensions escalate under Maduro

It was only after Chávez’s death, and amid the deepening political and economic crisis under Nicolás Maduro, that Washington shifted strategy — first imposing financial sanctions in 2017 and later, in 2019, targeting Venezuela’s oil sector directly, marking a decisive break in the more transactional relationship that had existed before.

Since 2019, US sanctions have targeted PDVSA and the broader oil trade, blocking financial access and outlawing most exports. The measures were designed to deny Maduro access to hard currency, while pressuring his government into negotiations with the opposition.

Enforcement has included aggressive action against shipping. Tankers suspected of carrying Venezuelan crude have been threatened with seizure, denied insurance or barred from ports. The US has also sanctioned intermediaries accused of disguising the origin of Venezuelan oil and routing it through third countries.

The result has been a shadow oil trade, with Venezuelan crude sold at steep discounts, often to buyers in Asia, through opaque networks of traders and ship-to-ship transfers.

 Venezuela's President Maduro and Vice President Tareck El Aissami, tour the construction of La Rinconada baseball stadium, on the outskirts of Caracas. April 9, 2024 Ricardo Mazalan/Copyright 2018 The AP. All rights reserved.

Chevron’s exception

Chevron is the sole major US oil company still operating in Venezuela because it has been granted a specific licence by the US Treasury. Issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the licence allows Chevron to produce and export Venezuelan oil under strict conditions.

Chevron is allowed to operate in Venezuela only in oil projects it already shared with PDVSA. It cannot start new projects or significantly increase production.

Chevron’s operations are structured so that cash flows and profits do not directly benefit PDVSA or the Venezuelan state under current sanctions licences.

The funds are instead used to cover basic operating costs such as staff, maintenance and transport for between a third and a fourth of Venezuela's oil production.

Venezuelan Petroleum Minister Tareck El Aissami shakes hands with Chevron President in Venezuela, Javier La Rosa, during an agreement signing ceremony in Caracas. Matias Delacroix/Copyright 2022 The AP. All rights reserved

Chevron is paid in... oil?

PDVSA failed for years to pay its share of operating costs and bills in their joint ventures. In effect, Chevron is being repaid in oil, rather than paying Venezuela in cash. The Venezuelan government does not receive fresh revenue from these operations — no dividends, no budget income, no direct cash transfers.

The licence is temporary and must be renewed periodically, giving Washington the ability to revoke it if political conditions deteriorate.

Why Washington allows it

US officials argue that Chevron’s continued presence actually strengthens sanctions enforcement rather than undermining it.

First, Chevron provides transparency. Oil produced under its licence is traceable, insured, and sold through formal channels, reducing Venezuela’s reliance on illicit traders and hard-to-monitor shipments.

From Washington’s perspective, allowing limited, supervised exports is preferable to driving all Venezuelan oil sales underground.

Second, Chevron’s operations are tied to debt repayment. PDVSA owes Chevron hundreds of millions of dollars after failing for years to cover its share of joint-venture costs. Allowing Chevron to recover those losses through oil shipments settles existing obligations without injecting fresh cash into the Venezuelan state.

Third, the arrangement offers leverage. The licence can be tightened, expanded, or revoked depending on Caracas’s behaviour, particularly around elections and negotiations with the opposition. In this sense, Chevron functions as a pressure valve rather than a reward.

Critics, including Venezuelan opposition figures and human rights groups, argue that any oil production ultimately benefits the Maduro government and weakens the moral force of sanctions.

If US President Donald Trump, who has deployed warships to Venezuela’s coast, were to attack and overthrow the government, no company would be better placed than Chevron to help rebuild the country’s battered oil industry.

If, instead, Trump were to strike a deal with Maduro, Caracas would need to maximise oil exports to generate cash — again playing to Chevron’s advantage.