Chuck Holton
Politics • Culture • News
Is something about to break between the United States and Venezuela—or is this just more noise?
December 02, 2025
post photo preview

If you’re watching from Venezuela, Trinidad, Colombia, or anywhere in the region, you don’t need me to tell you that the temperature is rising. Airspace restrictions, warships in the Caribbean, drug boats getting blown out of the water, and now more details about that phone call between President Trump and Nicolás Maduro—all of it points in one direction:

Let’s walk through what’s really happening, why it matters, and what it might mean for the people who are going to pay the highest price if this goes sideways.

The Trump–Maduro Phone Call: No Deals Left to Make

For several days we only knew that Trump and Maduro had spoken. Now we know a lot more about what was said.

According to Trump, the call was simple and blunt. Maduro wanted a deal: Let me stay in power, let me keep control of the military, and I’ll “help” you fight drugs. In other words: keep the cartel state intact, just rebrand it a bit.

Trump’s answer? No deal.

He essentially told Maduro, You’re out of bargaining chips. You’re not in a position to negotiate. You need to leave.

Whether that was phrased as a formal ultimatum or not, the message was clear: Washington is done pretending Maduro is a normal head of state. He’s a narco-dictator sitting on a collapsing country that has become a forward operating base for Russia, China, Iran, and every Marxist mischief-maker in the hemisphere.

That kind of phone call doesn’t happen unless other pieces are already on the board: intelligence operations, military deployments, diplomatic groundwork. And those pieces are very much in motion.

 

What Venezuela Looks Like From the Inside

To understand why things feel so volatile, you have to understand what daily life actually looks like inside Venezuela right now.

Hyperinflation has turned the national currency into colorful trash. The nominal minimum wage is about one U.S. dollar a month. Nobody lives on that, of course. People survive on side hustles, multiple family members crammed into one home, whatever odd jobs they can find, and—crucially—remittances from relatives abroad.

It costs roughly $500 a month to feed a family of four decently. The average Venezuelan scrapes together maybe a third to half of that. That gap is hunger. It’s kids fainting at school. It’s medicine you can’t afford and hospitals that demand you buy your own drugs before a nurse will even hang the IV bag.

I’ve been to the border city of Cúcuta, Colombia, many times. At night the streets are lined with Venezuelan women—some as young as 13 or 14—selling the only thing they still have left to sell. Many of them are mothers with husbands back home. They’re not there because they want to be. They’re there because socialism destroyed their economy, shredded the rule of law, and shoved them into a scarcity mindset where survival trumps morality.

That’s what twenty-five years of Chavista “revolution” does. It doesn’t just wreck GDP charts. It corrodes the culture from the inside out.

So when people say, “Hey, if things are so bad, why haven’t Venezuelans overthrown Maduro?”—the short answer is: he kept just enough money flowing to keep people barely alive and too exhausted, too beaten down, and too afraid to rise up.

Which brings us to the money.

 

Who’s Keeping Maduro Afloat?

At this point, two main lifelines keep the regime from collapsing outright:

  1. Oil revenues, especially via Chevron, which pumps roughly 200,000+ barrels a day out of Venezuela under a special license. Under Trump’s terms, that money is supposed to be used mainly to pay down debt, not prop up the regime—but money is fungible. Any debt paid with Chevron cash is money Maduro doesn’t have to spend himself.

  2. Remittances, mostly from Venezuelans abroad. We’re talking $4–5 billion a year flowing back into the country. That’s a huge chunk of what keeps ordinary families from starving—and indirectly keeps Maduro in place, because it prevents the kind of total collapse that would spark an uprising.

So you have a regime that can’t feed its people, can’t keep the lights on, and still finds billions for Cuban advisers, security forces, and friendly gangs—colectivos—who do the dirty work: intimidation, disappearances, torture, and political killings.

This is the system Trump is now openly threatening.

 

The Drug War at Sea—and the Double-Tap Controversy

Layered on top of the political drama is a shooting war at sea that most Americans are barely aware of.

U.S. forces have been blowing up narco-boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific—fast craft with four or five outboard motors or semi-submersibles that exist for exactly one purpose: smuggling drugs. These vessels aren’t 10 miles off a beach; they’re 80–90 miles offshore, running dark, and moving way too fast for anyone to pretend they’re fishing boats.

The Pentagon says they know who’s on these boats, where they left from, where they’re headed, and what they’re carrying. The cartels involved have been designated foreign terrorist organizations. So the U.S. has declared this an armed conflict with those groups.

That’s why they’re using missiles instead of Coast Guard boarding parties.

The problem is the last strike, where a Washington Post story—based on anonymous sources—claims Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered a second hit on a wrecked boat where two survivors were clinging to the debris. If that’s true, and those men were no longer a threat, then under the laws of armed conflict that would cross the line into an unlawful killing.

Hegseth flatly denies giving that order. Congress has launched investigations. Until the classified intel comes out, anyone claiming to know exactly what happened is guessing.

Here’s the key point: finding out what happened, and prosecuting it if necessary, is exactly what differentiates a flawed but functioning republic from a regime like Maduro’s, where crimes by the state are covered up, not corrected.

Which brings us to the speeches.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
7
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Bondi Beach Massacre

Here's a longer version of the videio I showed on today's live:

00:10:42
Want to See What Combat is Like?

Several infantrymen from the Azov battalion clearing houses near Toretsk. Witness the utter destruction, and the horrific conditions created by this war. Warning: Foul language is used (in Ukrainian with subtitles)

00:12:51
September 18, 2025
Benjamin Netanyahu Explains the Israeli Economy

Netanyahu was once Israeli Finance Minister - and it shows. He understands a lot about economics, and is worth listening to in order to get a sense for where Israel's economy is headed.

00:08:49
Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

My erstwhile field producer and cameraman Dennis Azato has accompanied me on ten years of adventures across the globe. Today he joins me in Ukraine and we spend some time remembering our many trips together.

Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

Thank you to everyone who opened their hearts and homes to these puppies. We’re so grateful they’ve gone to such wonderful families. This community truly shows up in times of need, and we are incredibly thankful for every message, share, and offer of help. Merry Christmas!

post photo preview

Chuck, Merry Christmas to you, your wife, and entire family. May God Bless you all and thank you for all you do.

Christmas Special Live Call Link

Reminder: Live Call with Chuck Tomorrow at 12PM

Join Chuck Holton and the Hot Zone crew tomorrow, December 20th at 12PM for a special live call!

We’ll be announcing the winners of the Christmas giveaway and giving you an inside look at what’s coming next for The Hot Zone.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Three Americans Killed in Syria — and the Question Washington Doesn’t Want to Answer

Breaking news this Saturday: three Americans are dead in Syria tonight, three more are wounded, and the attack—described by U.S. Central Command as an ambush carried out by a lone ISIS gunman—has once again dragged the Syrian war back into the American consciousness for a few brief hours, which is usually all the time the public gives it before the news cycle moves on and the families are left to carry the weight alone.

 

CENTCOM says two of the dead were U.S. service members and one was an American civilian contractor, and that the attacker was engaged and killed as well, with names being withheld until next of kin are notified, which is the right thing to do; but even with those official facts in hand, I want to slow the pace down a little bit and do what I always try to do here—put this in context—because in a place like Syria, the story you get in the headline is almost never the story that explains why this happened.

I’m not interested in reporting tragedy like it’s a scoreboard, and I’m not interested in repeating a paragraph of breaking news without the background that makes it intelligible; I spent eight years in the military, and I’ve spent more than twenty years following the U.S. military across the globe—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria included, with more than a dozen trips into Afghanistan, roughly fifteen into Iraq, and seven or so into Syria—so when Americans die in a place most people couldn’t find on a map, I feel a responsibility to show you what the map actually means.

The desert isn’t empty—ISIS hides in the “nothing”

The reported location of the attack is Palmyra—Palmira on some maps—an ancient city in central Syria that sits on the edge of a brutal expanse of desert, the kind of wide open, sun-blasted country where outsiders assume nothing lives and nothing happens, when in reality it’s exactly the kind of terrain insurgents love because “nothing” is a perfect disguise, a perfect place to move, cache weapons, blend into small villages, disappear into wadis, and wait for opportunities.

Palmyra also sits inside territory controlled by Syria’s new administration under Ahmed al-Sharaa, and if that name makes you pause, it should, because this is where Syrian politics gets complicated in the way only Syria can do: al-Sharaa rose through jihadist ranks, he has a history tied to insurgent warfare against Americans in Iraq, he was captured and held for years, and he later returned to Syria and consolidated power with strong Turkish backing—so when you hear phrases like “new Syrian administration” or “transitional government,” don’t imagine a Western-style democracy that suddenly appeared out of the sand; imagine a patchwork of militias, alliances of convenience, old enemies wearing new uniforms, and a leadership class that wants international legitimacy while carrying a past that cannot be scrubbed clean with a new suit and a new flag.

Now layer on top of that the reality that ISIS is not gone from Syria, not even close.

U.S. estimates have long suggested there are still roughly 2,000 to 3,000 ISIS fighters operating in and around the central Syrian desert, and there are far more than that if you include facilitators, family networks, financiers, and the enormous number of ISIS-linked detainees and relatives held in camps and makeshift prisons; and while that fight has mostly slipped out of the American public’s view, it continues quietly, relentlessly, week after week, because the moment pressure is relieved in a place like this, the violence doesn’t fade—it regroups.

Why American troops are still there—despite everything

The United States currently has about 900 troops in Syria, a number that matters because it tells you how thin the margin is between “containment” and “collapse,” especially when the enemy has deep local roots and decades of practice living off the land and off the grievances of the people around them; and those American troops are there for one primary purpose: to keep a lid on ISIS so we don’t wake up one day to another wave of mass executions, terror-state governance, and regional destabilization that forces the world back into a far more expensive war.

That’s the mission, and it’s not abstract; when ISIS surged the last time, the human cost was staggering, and it wasn’t paid by politicians or pundits—it was paid by Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish fighters, civilians, and yes, Americans too—and the reason our presence in Syria still functions as a deterrent is that in a powder keg region, a small, capable American footprint has a way of discouraging ambitious actors from taking the final step that turns instability into open war.

But here is the part that doesn’t get said out loud very often: the mission in Syria is increasingly tangled up in partnerships that are, at best, uneasy and, at worst, morally and strategically risky.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Dark Fleet Is Fueling the World’s Dictators — And the U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Do Something About It

I’m coming to you today from Panama, where I’ve been digging into a story that’s far bigger than most people realize. It involves a shadowy network of ships—1,423 of them at last count—that roam the world’s oceans moving sanctioned oil for regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Some call it the dark fleet, others the ghost fleet, but whatever the name, it’s become a lifeline for the world’s worst dictators.

Out of those 1,423 vessels, roughly 920 are sanctioned themselves. These aren’t just ships doing business in a gray area—they are part of a global ecosystem of deception, fraud, and corruption that props up authoritarian governments and undermines the international rules that keep maritime trade safe. They spoof GPS signals, turn off their transponders, swap oil with “cleaner” tankers in the dead of night, operate under shell-company ownership, and sail uninsured—floating environmental disasters just waiting to happen.

And for years, not much was done about it. But that may be changing.

Just days ago, the United States seized a massive VLCC tanker—the Skipper—carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for Cuba. It’s a move that seems small on its own, but it hints at something larger: Washington may finally be realizing that targeting the dark fleet isn’t just desirable—it’s strategically powerful.

That raises a fascinating question: What would happen if the U.S. and its allies cracked down hard on these ghost ships—everywhere, all at once? Could it reshape global power? Could it even topple Maduro?

Let’s dig into that.

 

A Sanctions Loophole Big Enough to Sail a Tanker Through

These ghost ships function by exploiting cracks in the global maritime system. They manipulate AIS beacons, swap oil mid-ocean, hide ownership behind layers of shell companies, fly false flags, and operate without legitimate insurance. The UN’s maritime regulator has warned that these rusted, poorly maintained hulks are ticking time bombs—and we’ve already seen “Ukrainian sanctions” in action when Ukrainian sea drones blew up several shadow-fleet tankers in the Black Sea.

Imagine what happens if one of these decrepit tankers explodes in a global choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. You’d see a shock to oil markets overnight.

And yet, that’s the system that keeps Venezuela, Iran, and Russia afloat.

 

The U.S. Begins to Apply Pressure

The seizure of the Skipper wasn’t random. It’s part of a broader pressure campaign—one that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has openly supported. He said plainly that going after these vessels is a direct way to choke off the revenue Maduro depends on to stay in power.

Pompeo also noted something key: Maduro’s regime probably has “weeks, not months” of financial runway without this illicit revenue stream. And Cuba—already experiencing rolling blackouts—relies on Venezuela for about a quarter of its total energy supply. This single tanker seizure hurts Havana even more than Caracas.

But perhaps the most important variable is geography. Satellite data reveals dozens of sanctioned tankers parked just off Venezuela’s northern coast. In theory, if the U.S. waits for them to exit Venezuela’s 200-mile EEZ, it could legally seize many of them—especially the stateless ones.

Imagine the U.S. grabbing one tanker per day.

The ripple effects would be enormous.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals