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!! 👏👏👏
🛐✝️🔯💟☮️

post photo preview
What Happened Outside RAF Fairford? The Questions Are Getting More Serious

Five British men were arrested near a U.S.-operated bomber base after being found with three suspicious vans in the middle of the night. No explosives were ultimately discovered, but petrol was recovered, investigators are examining possible foreign involvement, and Washington says the incident was far more serious than it may first appear.

 

The more information that comes out about what happened outside RAF Fairford over the weekend, the stranger this story becomes.

Shortly after midnight Sunday, three vans were spotted near the Gloucestershire air base, which has become an important operating location for American bombers during the war with Iran. A local resident reported seeing a group of masked men near the vehicles and alerted police. Armed officers responded, five men were arrested, homes were evacuated and bomb-disposal specialists spent hours examining the vans.

Armed police guard a road near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire following the arrest of five British men in the early hours of September 27, 2026. Counterterrorism investigators are examining why three suspicious vans were near the U.S.-operated air base and whether a foreign actor may have been involved.

 

British counterterrorism police initially arrested the five men under the Explosives Act and later on suspicion of preparing an act of terrorism. All five are British nationals in their 20s from London. They have since been released on police bail under what authorities describe as stringent restrictions while the investigation continues.

Then came an important development.

Police announced that they had found no explosive devices in the vehicles. They did, however, recover a quantity of petrol.

That changes part of the story. It does not explain it.

Three Vans in the Middle of the Night

There is still a very basic question investigators need to answer: What were these men doing there?

RAF Fairford is not an ordinary airport. It is a strategically important British installation used extensively by the United States Air Force. Its unusually long runway makes it suitable for America's heavy bomber fleet, and B-1 and B-52 bombers have operated from Fairford during the conflict with Iran.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard has previously identified Fairford as a potential target because of its role in American military operations against Iran.

Suspects are detained by armed police near RAF Fairford early on September 27, 2026. Five British nationals in their 20s were arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses and later on suspicion of preparing an act of terrorism. All five were subsequently released on bail while the investigation continues.

 

So when several masked men turn up near that particular installation in three vans shortly after midnight, authorities have little choice but to treat it seriously.

That is exactly what they did.

The original account from the scene described men wearing face coverings who fled after being spotted by a local resident. Bomb-disposal teams were brought in, a security cordon was established and nearby homes were evacuated while investigators worked through the vehicles.

Police now say there were no explosives inside those vans. That is an important fact, and it means some of the early reporting suggesting investigators had discovered a ready-made bomb was wrong.

But the absence of explosives does not answer the question of intent.

Police recovered petrol. The men were close to a military installation housing extremely valuable American aircraft. And British counterterrorism investigators have not closed the case. They are continuing to investigate whether the men may have been acting, knowingly or unknowingly, on behalf of a foreign state.

That last possibility is where this story becomes much more consequential.

Was a Foreign Government Involved?

British authorities have been deliberately cautious.

Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor, the head of Britain's counterterrorism policing, has said investigators are keeping an open mind and examining multiple possibilities, including whether proxies or individuals working for a foreign state could have been involved.

They have not publicly concluded that Iran directed these men.

A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer takes off from RAF Fairford on September 29, 2026, as the investigation surrounding the security incident continued outside the base. Fairford has supported American bomber operations during the conflict with Iran.

 

Iran has denied involvement, and at this point there is not enough publicly available evidence for me—or anyone outside the investigation—to state definitively that Tehran ordered an operation against RAF Fairford.

The American government, however, is talking about this somewhat differently.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News that there were details he could not discuss publicly, but described what happened as an extremely serious situation.

“What happened, what almost happened, what could have happened in the UK over the weekend is a very serious situation.”

Rubio went further, saying the incident “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor,” although he stopped short of publicly identifying which country he believed was responsible.

He also connected the episode to Iran's public threats against American interests around the world.

That tells me something important.

The U.S. government apparently knows considerably more about this incident than has been released publicly.

That does not prove Iran was responsible. But when the U.S. secretary of state publicly says a foreign actor was involved while British counterterrorism police simultaneously investigate possible state sponsorship, it deserves attention.

The Iran Connection Cannot Be Dismissed

One of the mistakes people make when they imagine state-sponsored terrorism is assuming that a foreign government has to send its own intelligence officers into another country carrying explosives.

That is not necessarily how these operations work.

Iran has previously been accused by Western governments and security agencies of using criminal intermediaries and locally recruited proxies in plots abroad. That structure offers obvious advantages: distance from the operation, reduced exposure for Iranian personnel and a degree of plausible deniability if the people carrying out the act are arrested.

That is one reason the nationality of the Fairford suspects does not resolve the question of foreign involvement. All five men are British citizens. That tells us who they are; it does not necessarily tell us whether someone else directed or financed whatever they were doing.

During the live broadcast, I said the incident had characteristics that made me suspicious of an Iranian connection. But suspicion is not proof, and there are still enormous holes in the publicly available story.

We do not know precisely why the men were there.

We do not know what they intended to do with the petrol.

We do not know whether other individuals were involved.

And most importantly, we do not yet know who—if anyone—sent them.

Until investigators answer those questions, this remains an unresolved counterterrorism investigation rather than a proven Iranian attack.

Why Fairford Matters

The location is what makes the possibility so serious.

RAF Fairford has played a direct role in American operations against Iran. Earlier this year, the base hosted a major concentration of U.S. bombers as the air campaign intensified. At one point, roughly 15 B-1 and B-52 bombers were reportedly stationed there, and B-52s operating from Fairford flew missions over Iran.

These are enormously valuable aircraft, but their strategic importance goes well beyond their price tag.

A modern bomber sitting on the ground is fundamentally different from one flying at altitude surrounded by sophisticated defensive systems. Aircraft on an airfield are stationary targets, which is precisely why military bases have layered security.

An attacker would not necessarily need some spectacular truck bomb to create a serious problem. Fire alone can damage aircraft, fuel systems, maintenance equipment and other infrastructure.

That is why I am reluctant to dismiss this incident simply because police did not discover a completed explosive device.

The important question is not merely what was inside those vans when police opened them.

The important question is what the men intended to do once they reached their destination.

The Decision to Release the Suspects

The other part of this case attracting attention is Britain's decision to release all five suspects on bail.

President Donald Trump publicly questioned the decision, saying he would not have released them. Rubio acknowledged that many people were disturbed by it as well.

British counterterrorism officials have defended the move.

Taylor emphasized that release on bail does not mean the men have been cleared. They remain under investigation and face restrictions on their movement and contact with other people.

There may be investigative reasons for that decision that the public does not know. There may also be evidence that significantly changes our understanding of what happened.

That is why I am not prepared to tell you that releasing them proves British authorities are ignoring the threat. We simply do not have enough information to know what investigators know.

But I do think the public deserves answers.

When five men are arrested under terrorism and explosives laws near a military base actively supporting combat operations, when a major counterterrorism response follows, when the U.S. secretary of state says a foreign actor was involved, and when the suspects are subsequently released on bail, people are naturally going to ask what happened.

A Warning Beyond One British Air Base

There is a bigger lesson here, regardless of what investigators ultimately determine.

The conflict with Iran does not necessarily remain confined to Iranian territory, the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz.

American forces operate from installations around the world. Those bases, the people serving on them and the infrastructure supporting them become potential targets when the United States enters a sustained military confrontation.

Iran does not need to defeat the United States conventionally to create problems. A state facing overwhelming American military power has every incentive to look for asymmetric methods—proxies, sabotage, cyberattacks and other operations that are cheaper, harder to attribute and capable of creating political effects far beyond the physical damage they cause.

Whether RAF Fairford turns out to be an example of that strategy remains an open question.

British investigators have not attributed the incident to Iran. Tehran denies involvement. No explosives were found in the vans. Those facts should not be buried simply because they complicate the story.

But neither should we ignore the facts pointing in the other direction: masked men, three vans, petrol, a strategically important American bomber base, previous Iranian threats against that installation and a statement from America's secretary of state that a foreign actor was involved.

Those pieces do not yet give us the entire picture.

They give us enough to keep asking questions.

And until British and American authorities explain exactly what those men were doing outside RAF Fairford in the middle of the night, this is one story I would not dismiss.

Read full Article
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
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