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
September 25, 2026
You Will Be Shocked at What they Find in this Drone

Russia's new GERAN drone is wreaking havoc across Ukraine. The Ukrainians captured one and took it apart. You'll be amazed at what they found.

00:04:12
September 19, 2026
Pray for Israel

Tens of thousands of Israelis in a concert hall, on their feet, singing a beautiful, haunting melody.

The song is Hashivenu. The words are 2,500 years old. They come from the last chapter of Lamentations, the book Jews read on Tisha B’Av when they mourn the destruction of the Temple.

After page after page of ruin, that book does not end in despair. It ends with a prayer:

Hashivenu Adonai elecha venashuva. Chadesh yameinu kekedem.

“Turn us back to You, O LORD, and we will return. Renew our days as of old.”

That’s the whole lyric. Turn us. We can’t turn ourselves. Restore what was lost — not a new identity, the life we were made for.

In synagogue, when the reader reaches this verse, he stops. The congregation says it together so destruction doesn’t get the last word. In 2025, Israeli singer Hanan Ben Ari set it to a new melody and released it as hostages began coming home. Mid-song you may hear an English voice talking about freedom. That’s Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach ...

00:04:35
September 13, 2026
Night train Jackpot!

We managed to score a first class berth On the night train from Kyiv to Lviv.

00:00:54
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
The children Russia Stole
New Documentary

My CBN colleague Paul Petit made this documentary - go check it out!

Wow! I just went to church listening to Oscar Blue’s Sunday podcast!! All y’all gotta watch this:

Would love to help get him to Spain to receive his recognition & award!
Bravo!! 👏👏👏
🛐✝️🔯💟☮️

There’s Something to Be Said for Owning Something Real

 

There’s Something to Be Said for Owning Something Real

So much of our financial lives today exists on a screen.

Stocks. Retirement accounts. Bank balances. Numbers that can change dramatically depending on what’s happening in markets or the economy.

There’s something different about owning a tangible asset.

Physical gold and silver have been recognized as stores of value for thousands of years, surviving currencies, governments and economic cycles.

That’s one reason I believe in physical precious metals — and why I’ve chosen to partner with Preserve Gold.

Their team helps people understand their options for adding physical gold and silver to their retirement strategy, without the high-pressure approach you might expect.

See why millions of Americans are turning to physical gold and silver to help protect accounts with this FREE Wealth Protection Kit from Preserve Gold.

In this kit, Preserve Gold — trusted by 750+ five-star reviewers—shows you how to:

• Move part of an eligible 401(k) or IRA into physical gold or silver — tax and penalty-free

• Help protect a portion of your portfolio from the next correction, whenever it comes

• Work with a provider backed by a price-match guarantee, free insured shipping, no-fee buybacks, and a 24-hour purchase guarantee

In addition to the guide, you can also receive up to $20,000 in Gold and Silver with a qualified account rollover or purchase. Click here to claim your free guide today.

 

 

Disclaimer: Preserve Gold cannot provide tax or legal advice and will not advise to the tax or legal consequences of buying precious metals or opening a precious metals IRA. Even though Preserve Gold and its representatives are precious metals specialists, we are not licensed financial advisors and do not give financial advice. Individuals should consult with their legal, investment, or tax professionals for such services. All investments carry risk. Some of those risks associated with precious metals include the following. Prices may rise or fall, which means that the value of your metals may go up or down and you may sell for more or less than what you paid. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Preserve Gold cannot guarantee or promise future market movement, prices, or profits. In this communication, statements made are opinions and historical performance is no indication of future performance or returns. Information derived from third parties represents only the opinions of the third parties', and we do not endorse any of the third parties' opinions. Copyright © 2026 Preserve Gold Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Read full Article
September 28, 2026
post photo preview
Ebola Is Back — And There’s No Vaccine for This Strain
Early Access Content

A deadly Ebola outbreak is spreading through eastern Congo, and most of the world barely seems to be paying attention. In this episode, I break down how the outbreak reportedly grew from a mining town into thousands of cases, why conflict and displacement have made containment so difficult, and why the Bundibugyo strain presents a different challenge from the Zaire strain that drove the 2014 West Africa outbreak. I also look at what this actually means for Americans, why the immediate U.S. public-health risk remains low, and the much larger strategic consequences of allowing an outbreak to grow inside one of the most unstable and resource-rich regions on Earth.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
September 26, 2026
post photo preview
Netanyahu Takes Israel’s Case Directly to a Hostile United Nations

After delegates walked out of the General Assembly, Israel’s prime minister stayed at the podium and delivered an unapologetic defense of his country, confronting accusations over Gaza while turning his fire on Qatar, Turkey and Iran.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu walked into the United Nations General Assembly knowing that a significant number of delegates had no intention of listening to him.

As the Israeli prime minister approached the podium, delegations began leaving the chamber. Netanyahu appeared entirely prepared for the spectacle. Rather than ignoring the walkout, he opened by addressing it directly.

“If there are any other moral cowards who haven’t yet left this hall, please do so now.”

That opening established the tone for everything that followed.

Netanyahu did not come to New York to deliver a conciliatory diplomatic speech. He came to defend Israel’s conduct during nearly three years of war, challenge some of the most serious accusations leveled against his government and confront countries he says have helped create an international campaign against the Jewish state.

Delegates leave the United Nations General Assembly hall as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu begins his address on September 24, 2026. Netanyahu responded to the walkout from the podium, calling those leaving the chamber “moral cowards.” Photo: Jeenah Moon/Reuters.

 

Whatever you think of Netanyahu, it was a remarkable speech to watch. He stood before an institution where Israel has faced sustained criticism and, rather than soften his message for the room, challenged his critics directly.

The result was less a traditional diplomatic address than a prosecution of Israel’s case before a deeply divided international audience.

Netanyahu Confronts the Genocide Accusation

The most consequential portion of Netanyahu’s speech concerned Gaza.

Israel continues to face accusations that its military campaign amounts to genocide, allegations that have become central to the international debate surrounding the war. The International Court of Justice has issued provisional measures in the genocide case brought by South Africa, but those measures are not a final judgment on the merits of the genocide allegation. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres this week again emphasized the extraordinary scale of death and destruction in Gaza and called for compliance with international law and the court’s orders.

Netanyahu rejected the accusation outright.

“What genocidal regime gives a million polio vaccinations to the enemy’s population? What genocidal regime enables the distribution of 2 million tons of food into Gaza? That’s a ton for every person.”

Then he delivered his conclusion:

“Accusing Israel of genocide is the greatest lie of the century.”

Those are Netanyahu’s claims and his defense of Israel’s conduct. They will certainly not settle the argument internationally, particularly among governments and organizations that have reached dramatically different conclusions about the war.

But his broader argument was clear: Israel was attacked on October 7, 2023, and he believes the international conversation has increasingly separated everything that followed from the event that began this war.

That is something I have struggled to understand throughout this conflict.

There was no war between Israel and Gaza on October 6, 2023. The next morning, Hamas-led terrorists crossed into Israel, murdered civilians and took hostages back into Gaza. Israel responded with overwhelming military force.

You can debate that response. You can scrutinize individual operations, military decisions and Israeli government policy. You should. No government should be beyond scrutiny during wartime.

But Israel’s right to defend its population cannot simply disappear from the discussion.

That was the case Netanyahu was making to a room in which many delegations had already decided they would rather leave than hear him make it.

A Different Kind of War

Netanyahu then widened his argument beyond the battlefield.

Israel, he said, is fighting not only a military war but an information war over how the conflict is understood around the world.

“Our brave soldiers have been valiantly fighting a seven-front war, but there’s an eighth front to this war. It’s the war for truth.”

He singled out Qatar, accusing the Gulf state of spending enormous sums over decades to shape opinion through universities and media organizations, including Al Jazeera.

Qatar strongly disputes the Israeli portrayal of its role. Doha has positioned itself as a mediator in the conflict and says it has worked to secure ceasefires, humanitarian relief and the release of detainees and hostages. Qatar’s own address to the General Assembly this week presented almost the mirror image of Netanyahu’s argument, accusing Israel of devastating Gaza and failing to meet its obligations.

That contrast is worth understanding because it illustrates just how far apart the competing narratives have become.

Delegates leave the United Nations General Assembly hall as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu begins his address on September 24, 2026. Netanyahu responded to the walkout from the podium, calling those leaving the chamber “moral cowards.” Photo: Jeenah Moon/Reuters.

 

Netanyahu sees Israel fighting a military campaign while simultaneously confronting a global political and information campaign designed to isolate it.

His opponents see Israel as using that argument to deflect criticism of the enormous civilian toll and destruction in Gaza.

Both arguments are now playing out not only on television screens and social media but inside the United Nations itself.

Netanyahu Turns on Erdogan

Netanyahu reserved some of his harshest language for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Erdogan has become one of Israel’s most outspoken international critics and has used his own appearance at the General Assembly to accuse Israel of genocide and call for greater international pressure on Jerusalem.

Netanyahu answered personally.

“Erdogan is a tyrant. He also hosts the Hamas terror chiefs. He has murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians. He denies the Armenian genocide. He jails journalists and opposition leaders.”

He also accused Turkey of occupying northern Cyprus and threatening Greece before turning to Erdogan’s rhetoric concerning Jerusalem.

“He says he’s going to be the ruler of Jerusalem. No, sir, you won’t. This is our country, our city, our eternal capital.”

This was Netanyahu at his most confrontational. There was virtually none of the careful diplomatic language normally associated with a General Assembly address.

He named his adversaries and attacked them directly.

And then he turned to Iran.

A Starlink Terminal and a Message to Tehran

This was probably the most theatrical moment of the speech.

Netanyahu brought a Starlink terminal with him to the podium while discussing Iran’s restrictions on communications and access to information. He described the device as a means for ordinary people to access information beyond government censorship.

Then he offered it to the Iranian delegation.

“Mr. President, I’m going to leave this device with you so you can give it to the Iranian delegation so when they inevitably defect, they too will be able to freely tell their story on social media.”

It was political theater, obviously.

But it was effective political theater.

Later, according to the account discussed during my broadcast, Israel’s U.N. ambassador attempted to deliver the device to the Iranian delegation. They declined it. Given the history of Israeli intelligence operations involving electronic devices, I cannot say I blame Iranian officials for being somewhat reluctant to accept electronics handed to them by the Israelis.

Netanyahu even invoked that history himself when he produced another prop: a pager, an unmistakable reference to the extraordinary 2024 operation in which communications devices used by Hezbollah members exploded across Lebanon.

The symbolism was impossible to miss.

His message to Iran and its allies was essentially this: Israel has demonstrated that it can reach into organizations and places once believed to be beyond its reach.

The Empty Seats Told Only Part of the Story

One of the most interesting aspects of the speech was the diplomatic choreography surrounding it.

Delegates walked out, but not everyone did. The United Arab Emirates remained, according to the account I reviewed during the live broadcast. Armenia also remained in the chamber. I found Armenia’s decision particularly interesting given the complicated history of relations between Armenia, Israel and Turkey.

Netanyahu argued that some governments publicly condemning Israel have privately benefited from Israeli actions against Iran.

“Israel is also defending many of the countries whose delegates just left this hall.”

He then made an even more striking assertion:

“Many of their leaders even thank us privately for taking out Iran’s nukes.”

That claim cannot be independently confirmed from the speech itself, and Netanyahu did not publicly identify the leaders he said had privately thanked him. But the argument reflects one of the central contradictions in Middle Eastern diplomacy: governments can fiercely criticize Israel in public while sharing serious security concerns about Iran and its regional network.

The public diplomacy and the private security relationships are not always the same thing.

That is one reason I paid particular attention to who stayed in the room as well as who left it.

Netanyahu’s Argument About Christians

Netanyahu also challenged the international community over the treatment of Christians in the Middle East.

“Their numbers are plummeting everywhere in the Middle East where they’re being persecuted and hounded except one place, my country, Israel, where the Christian community is growing, thriving, succeeding.”

He then pointed to Bethlehem, arguing that its Christian share of the population fell dramatically after the city came under Palestinian Authority administration.

The demographic history of Bethlehem is more complicated than a single cause; emigration, economic conditions, conflict and political changes have all contributed to the decline of its Christian population. But Netanyahu’s larger point was directed squarely at governments and activists who regularly condemn Israel while, in his view, devoting considerably less attention to the persecution of religious minorities elsewhere in the region.

It was another example of the structure running through the entire address: Netanyahu was not simply defending Israeli policy. He was accusing Israel’s critics of applying standards to the Jewish state that they do not consistently apply elsewhere.

The United Nations Put on Trial

That may ultimately be the most important thing about this speech.

Netanyahu was ostensibly standing before the United Nations to answer Israel’s critics. Instead, he attempted to reverse the proceeding and put the United Nations itself on trial.

And he was not alone.

Argentine President Javier Milei also used his appearance to deliver a sweeping criticism of the institution, accusing it of failing in its responsibilities on collective security and human rights. The broader General Assembly debate has exposed profound divisions over Gaza, Iran, the role of international institutions and the future of the international order itself.

That is why I think Netanyahu’s speech mattered beyond Israel.

The United Nations was created to provide a place where countries that profoundly disagree can still confront one another with words rather than weapons. There is value in that, even when the institution fails spectacularly to live up to its own ideals.

But there is also something revealing about watching diplomats walk out rather than remain in their seats and hear the leader of a country they condemn.

Netanyahu knew they were going to leave. He came anyway. And when they walked out, he delivered his argument to the empty seats. Whether those delegates agreed with him was never really the point. They obviously did not.

The point was that Israel’s prime minister wanted the world to hear his case directly: that Israel sees itself not as the aggressor portrayed by many of its critics, but as a country fighting enemies on several fronts while simultaneously fighting an international battle over the legitimacy of defending itself.

His critics will reject that characterization. Israel’s supporters will see the speech as an overdue confrontation with an institution they believe has treated the Jewish state unfairly.

But after watching the address, one thing was difficult to miss. Netanyahu did not arrive at the United Nations asking for its approval. He arrived prepared to challenge its judgment.

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