Good morning. Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is under criminal investigation. “One Battle After Another” and “Adolescence” were the big winners at the Golden Globes. And you can read the entire transcript of our interview last week with President Trump. We’ll get to more below. We’ll start today, though, by taking your questions.
Your Venezuela questionsWas the U.S. incursion into Venezuela legal? Do everyday Venezuelans favor American involvement in their country’s affairs? What will happen to the oil — or the president and his wife, seized by Delta Force commandos more than a week ago? We asked readers for their questions about Venezuela. Today, The Times’s expert beat reporters — and our executive editor — answer. The legalityIs there a precedent for this? | Katie Matthies, Jackson Hole, Wyo. Michael Crowley, who covers foreign policy, writes: Yes. President Nicolás Maduro’s capture echoes the 1989 arrest of Panama’s former dictator, Manuel Noriega. Like Maduro, the Panamanian general was considered an illegitimate ruler and had been federally indicted for drug trafficking. But his apprehension involved a major U.S. ground invasion with nearly 30,000 troops. After his surrender, Noriega was tried, convicted and imprisoned in the U.S. for many years. Congress largely supported President George H.W. Bush — who said he was also protecting democracy, the Panama Canal and American citizens in Panama — but some lawmakers argued that he lacked legal authority. Nicolás Maduro is set to stand a real trial, not a show trial like Saddam Hussein’s. What happens if a jury in New York finds Maduro not guilty or if he posts bail? Would he walk the streets of New York freely? | Max White, Brooklyn, N.Y. William K. Rashbaum, who covers political corruption, writes: The likelihood that the judge will release Maduro on bond is very slim, because he has effectively been a fugitive for nearly six years, having been indicted in March 2020 on similar charges. And if he were acquitted? Under our system of justice, he will be free to go unless prosecutors bring other charges against him. Any trial, however, is probably over a year away. Why was Maduro’s wife arrested, and what are the charges against her? | Sandra Simon, Wenham, Mass. Jonah Bromwich, who covers White House influence on New York courts, writes: Before she was Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores was a powerful Venezuelan politician: She was Hugo Chávez’s criminal defense lawyer, a leader in his political machine and eventually a member of the nation’s legislature. Prosecutors charged her with conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States as well as a pair of charges related to possessing machine guns. The indictment accuses her of joining her husband in partnering with narcotics traffickers and says she accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. The oil
Why does the United States think it has the right to access Venezuelan oil? Isn’t that Venezuela’s decision? | Matt Wilhelm, Kennett Square, Pa. Simon Romero, who covers Latin America, writes: The Trump administration seems to be thinking about assets once owned by American oil companies that Venezuela nationalized in two different phases. In 1976, the country took control of the operations of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. U.S. companies received compensation. Chávez carried out the second nationalization in 2007, which was much more contentious. Most U.S. companies abandoned Venezuela at the time, saying they had lost billions. Chávez used oil revenue to turbocharge his socialist-inspired revolution at home and strengthen alliances with countries like Cuba, Iran and Russia. Oil is something that many Venezuelans view as their birthright, and Venezuelan law says the government controls the country’s energy wealth. So there is broad opposition in the country to the idea that foreign countries can lay claim to Venezuela’s oil. Venezuelan crude oil is of low quality, called “sour oil.” It will be expensive to refine. Why is the administration so focused on it? | Dianne Gardner, Oxford, Fla. Stanley Reed, who covers energy, writes: Yes, Venezuela’s dense oil is difficult to produce and refine. But many American refineries are configured for that type and may welcome, and profit from, more Venezuelan barrels. To Washington, Venezuela’s reserves may look like an A.T.M. for covering the cost of America’s intervention there — and a way to wield greater influence over global oil markets. It will cost billions to restore Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. And crude already trades at the low price of $60 per barrel. Will U.S. oil companies really want to enter a market where long-term political stability isn’t guaranteed? | Alexander Fisher, Washington, D.C. Rebecca F. Elliott, who covers energy, writes: There is a big gap between what the president has claimed and what American oil companies are prepared to do in Venezuela. Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, is the only American producer currently operating there. Will others return? It will come down to how the political situation evolves and the terms of investment. Exxon Mobil, which has been burned in Venezuela before, made clear on Friday that a lot would need to change. “Today it’s uninvestable,” Darren Woods, the company’s chief executive, told President Trump at the White House. Low oil prices are another obstacle, since companies would need high prices to offset the cost of drilling new Venezuelan wells. Geologically, why is there so much oil in Venezuela, and where in that country is it? | Bill Charlton, Cambridge Springs, Pa. Lisa Friedman, who covers the environment, writes: The country’s oil is concentrated in the Orinoco Belt, a region in the east covering some 20,000 miles. It sits atop a massive deposit of organic-rich rock formed from ancient marine life. Buried under immense heat and pressure over millions of years, it converted into oil. The politics
Are everyday Venezuelans leaning for or against U.S. intervention? Are they OK with the invasion and abduction since it means Maduro is out of power? | Gan Nu Suo, Fairfax, Va. Anatoly Kurmanaev, who is reporting in Venezuela, writes: Most Venezuelans wanted Maduro out, but not at the cost of invasion. A November national survey conducted in person by Datanalisis, one of the country’s most established independent pollsters, found that less than one in four Venezuelans supported foreign intervention in the country. This broadly echoes private polling I’ve seen here in recent months. At the same time, Maduro was wildly unpopular and lost the last presidential election by a margin of nearly 40 percentage points. What do Venezuelans think today? My reporting shows that many are glad that Maduro is gone, but there’s widespread discontent across the political spectrum over the nakedly imperialist rhetoric from the Trump administration, which is basically trying to turn Venezuela into an American oil colony. Understanding whether that discontent triggers violence or political action is a focus of my reporting. Will this strengthen Trump’s position going into the 2026 midterms? For many Latinos, U.S. policy toward authoritarian regimes is deeply personal. Could this help recruit more Latino support in 2026? | Daniel Quinones, Miami Beach Jennifer Medina, who covers politics and demographic change, writes: It seems unlikely. Venezuelans are the fastest-growing group of Latinos in the United States, but they make up just .3 percent of the population. And they’re concentrated in South Florida, where Republicans already largely dominate. The majority of Latino voters in the United States — and in swing districts — are Mexican Americans, and there is little evidence that they vote based on foreign policy. Latino voters who have moved to Republicans in recent elections have repeatedly made it clear that their top concern is the economy. Is Trump’s attack on Venezuela, without congressional approval, an impeachable offense? | Joan Conover, Chicago Carl Hulse, The Times’s chief Washington correspondent, writes: Congress determines what is impeachable by deciding what amounts to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s unlikely his Republican allies would see the Venezuela raid that way. But the president says he expects Democrats to impeach him if they win control of the House in November, even though the Senate might dismiss such an action. The main focus for Democrats at the moment is passing legislation that would prohibit Trump from taking further military action without authorization from Congress. Should he continue to do so, Democrats might consider those actions part of an impeachment case if they return to power. Our coverage
Some media reporters wrote that The Times knew of the raid in advance but didn’t cover it until after it had begun. Why? | Anna French, Bozeman, Mont. Joe Kahn, executive editor of The Times, writes: We reported on U.S. missions targeting Venezuela, including boat strikes and preparation for land-based military action, in considerable detail for several months. Our Pentagon, national-security and intelligence-agency beat reporters talked repeatedly with their sources about heightened preparations for bolder action against the Venezuelan leadership. Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration. I’d like to walk through a little of how we approach reporting and publishing stories and this coverage. The use of military force by the United States is a high-priority area of coverage, including preparatory stages when a major operation is under consideration. We published a story in November about U.S. military planning options and the looming possibility of a U.S. strike in Venezuela and an effort to capture Maduro. In December, we reported on a buildup in military assets in the region. And just days before the eventual operation, we revealed a possible plan for Army Delta Force units to enter the country by land. Given the stakes, our reporters stayed in close contact with sources through the year-end holiday period and were aware of the possibility that that planning could result in new operations. While not relevant in this case, The Times does consult with the military when there are concerns that exposure of specific operational information could risk the lives of American troops. We take those concerns seriously, and have at times delayed publication or withheld details if they might lead to direct threats to members of the military. But in all such cases, we make our editorial decisions independently. And we have often published accountability and investigative stories about military and intelligence operations and national-security decision making that government officials pressed us to withhold. Our reporting on the U.S. and Venezuela has provided the public, including Congress, with information they would not otherwise have. In a democracy, the public needs independent, fair and verified reporting, and we consider that mission especially critical when it comes to coverage of the military. The Times is using the word “incursion” rather than the word “invasion” when describing our invasion of a sovereign nation. Why? | Nancy Swaim, Rockville, Ind. Susan Wessling, the Times editor in charge of standards and language, writes: The action in Venezuela on Jan. 3 was limited and brief, and the White House says there are no troops now on the ground there. That temporary military presence fits the definition of “incursion,” though there’s no newsroom requirement that reporters and editors have to use the word. This is different from the invasion of Panama in 1989. The United States ordered tens of thousands of troops into action to attack Noriega’s government after he declared a state of war.
Federal Reserve
Politics
International
In eight cartoons, Alison Bechdel gives advice on how to start a commune. One idea: Run with goats on a treadmill to produce electricity. The new dietary guidelines’ emphasis on red meat will worsen Americans’ health and our environment, Matt Prescott says. To stop bad actors from using A.I. to generate child sexual abuse material, Congress needs to create a legal safe harbor for testing A.I. models, Riana Pfefferkorn writes. Here is a column by David French on how Trump talks to his base. Each year, The New York Times Communities Fund supports nonprofits. This year, the fund is working with seven organizations that focus on helping people through education, from preschool to vocational training. Donate to the fund here.
“Man v Fat”: Players in this Dallas-area soccer league take a self-deprecating approach to weight loss. Find your turn-on: Focusing too much on sex can be a way to kill desire, some experts say. Try these unconventional approaches to spark intimacy. Your pick: The Morning’s most-clicked link yesterday was about Netflix’s deal with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Metropolitan Diary: She was singing my song.
40— That is the percentage increase in the acidity of surface seawater between the Industrial Revolution and 2024. Acidic seawater causes problems for the metabolism, sensory perception, reproduction and communication of ocean creatures.
N.F.L.: The San Francisco 49ers upset the defending Super Bowl champion, the Philadelphia Eagles, 23-19 in the wild-card round of the playoffs. Collectibles: The memorabilia of Jim Irsay, the Indianapolis Colts owner who died last year, will be up for auction in New York in March. The collection includes Muhammad Ali’s “Rumble in the Jungle” championship belt and the guitar Kurt Cobain used on Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album.
|
