Cuban leaders should be concerned following the U.S. military operation in Venezuela and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday, as President Donald Trump signaled that his administration could shift its focus to the Caribbean island.

Cuba has long maintained a presence in Venezuela, with intelligence agents and security personnel embedded amid close relations between Havana and Caracas.

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, said Venezuela’s spy agency was ‘basically full of Cubans,’ as was Maduro’s security detail.

‘One of the biggest problems Venezuelans have is they have to declare independence from Cuba,’ he said during a news conference in which officials revealed details of the military operation. ‘They tried to basically colonize it from a security standpoint.’

He added that the communist island was ‘a disaster. It’s run by incompetent, senile men — and in some cases, not senile, but incompetent nonetheless.’

The secretary has repeatedly denounced Cuba and its leadership as a dictatorship and a failed state.

‘If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned — at least a little bit,’ Rubio said.

Trump said Cuba was something his administration would ‘end up talking about because Cuba is a failing nation right now — a very badly failing nation.’

‘And we want to help the people,’ he added. ‘It’s very similar in the sense that we want to help the people in Cuba, but we also want to help the people who were forced out of Cuba and are living in this country.’

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken by U.S. forces and brought aboard the USS Iwo Jima. They were expected to be transported to the U.S. to face federal charges.

The couple, along with other Venezuelan officials, face ‘drug trafficking and narco-terrorism conspiracies,’ according to an unsealed indictment posted on social media Saturday by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

They are accused of partnering with drug cartels to traffic drugs into the U.S.

Maduro and his wife ‘will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,’ Bondi wrote.

They are charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the U.S.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday evening condemned the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, calling the operation both ‘unlawful’ and ‘unwise.’

In a lengthy post on X, Harris acknowledged that Maduro is a ‘brutal’ and ‘illegitimate’ dictator but said that President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela ‘do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.’

‘Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable,’ Harris wrote. ‘That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise. We’ve seen this movie before.

‘Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.’

Harris made the remarks hours after the Trump administration confirmed that Maduro and his wife were captured and transported out of Venezuela as part of ‘Operation Absolute Resolve.’

The former vice president also accused the administration of being motivated by oil interests rather than efforts to combat drug trafficking or promote democracy.

‘The American people do not want this, and they are tired of being lied to. This is not about drugs or democracy. It is about oil and Donald Trump’s desire to play the regional strongman,’ Harris said. ‘If he cared about either, he wouldn’t pardon a convicted drug trafficker or sideline Venezuela’s legitimate opposition while pursuing deals with Maduro’s cronies.’

Harris, who has been rumored as a potential Democratic contender in the 2028 presidential race, additionally accused the president of endangering U.S. troops and destabilizing the region.

‘The President is putting troops at risk, spending billions, destabilizing a region, and offering no legal authority, no exit plan, and no benefit at home,’ she said. ‘America needs leadership whose priorities are lowering costs for working families, enforcing the rule of law, strengthening alliances, and — most importantly — putting the American people first.’

Maduro and his wife arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn late Saturday after being transported by helicopter from the DEA in Manhattan after being processed.

Earlier in the day, Trump said that the U.S. government will ‘run’ Venezuela ‘until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

Harris’ office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.

With Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro extracted from Caracas on Jan. 3, Venezuelans and the world are anxious to learn about the future that awaits.

In a press conference following the Maduro operation on Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. is ‘going to run the country’ until a transition can be safely made.

Isaias Medina, an international lawyer and former senior Venezuelan diplomat, said a peaceful transition is vital for the 9 million to 10 million Venezuelans who are forcibly displaced and living in exile. Medina, who resigned his diplomatic post in protest against Maduro’s rule in 2017, told Fox News Digital that exiled Venezuelans ‘have been preparing ourselves to go back to rebuild our nation.’

With support from international organizations like the Organization of American States, Medina said the most important next step for Venezuela is to establish a transitional government that can restore the rule of law and rebuild institutions that have been decimated under the Maduro regime. Setting in place free and fair elections is particularly important, Medina said, noting that it’s ‘a legal obligation owed to [Venezuela’s] people, because on their occupied territory, it was never equitable or really free.’

Under Maduro, Medina said that ‘there was no separation of powers, there was no rule of law, there was not even sovereignty.’ Instead, Medina said Venezuela had an occupied territory extensively influenced by terrorist and trafficking organizations Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). He said these groups were exploiting Venezuelan resources.

David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that so long as Venezuela poses no threat to U.S. national security, the ‘ideal situation’ for Venezuela ‘would be American guidance for determined local action.’ 

‘The best we can shepherd Venezuela to be is a productive member of the family of nations, and that’s something that we can help with a softer touch, without boots on the ground,’ Daoud said. ‘I don’t think we need to be in the business of trying to create Jeffersonian democracies anywhere.’

Following Maduro’s ouster, Daoud said the level of chaos allowed to exist inside Venezuela will determine whether terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas will be able to continue operating there. ‘It would really depend — does the day after in Venezuela create a stable state that is able to properly exercise control over all its territory, is interested in implementing the rule of law, is not corrupt. That would make things very, very complicated, if not impossible, for Hezbollah to operate, at least in the way it has been operating for a decade-plus, ever since the linkage between it and the original Chávez regime came about.’

Going forward, Medina suggested that the country will also have to manage guerrilla forces like the colectivos, violent groups of Venezuelans who were armed and trained with old U.S. and Russian military weapons. Medina said having these guerrillas ‘return the weapons for freedom’ could help to ‘unite the nation under one banner of development and evolution… so that we can have a country that really meets the expectations, not only of the riches that it has, but of the people and the development of their education and training and jobs, because it has been completely destroyed by design.’

Though the road ahead is uncertain, Medina is filled with hope. ‘What we have ahead of us is a great journey to be able to build upon the ruins of what this regime left us. But I think we’re going to become stronger, and this is the moment. The time has come,’ Medina said.

It can fairly be said that the most precarious jobs in the world are those of a golf ball collector at a driving range, a mascot at a Chuck E. Cheese and a Trump administration lawyer.

That was evident at the press conference yesterday as President Donald Trump blew apart the carefully constructed narrative presented earlier for the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them in legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.

However, while noting the purpose of the capture, Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Maduro’s mentor and predecessor, Hugo Chávez.

This city is full of self-proclaimed Trump whisperers who rarely score above random selection in their predictions. However, there are certain pronounced elements in Trump’s approach to such matters. First, he is the most transparent president in my lifetime, with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.

In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.

Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.

The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this ‘kill list’ policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.

The courts have previously upheld the authority of presidents to seize individuals abroad, including the purported heads of state. This case is actually stronger in many respects than the one involving Noriega. Maduro will now make the same failed arguments that Noriega raised. He should lose those challenges under existing precedent. If courts apply the same standards to Trump (which is often an uncertain proposition), Trump will win on the right to seize Maduro and bring him to justice.

But then, how about the other rationales rattled off at Mar-a-Lago? In my view, it will not matter. Here is why:

The immediate purpose and result of the operation was to capture Maduro and to bring him to face his indictment in New York. That is Noriega 2.0. The administration put him into custody at the time of extraction with law enforcement personnel and handed him over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Trump administration can then argue that it had to deal with the aftermath of that operation and would not simply leave the country without a leader or stable government. Trump emphasized, ‘We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

I still do not like the import of those statements. Venezuelans must be in charge of their own country and our role, if any, must be to help them establish a democratic and stable government. Trump added, ‘We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.’

The devil is in the details. Venezuelans must decide who has their best interests in mind, not the United States.

However, returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose. Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.

He will leave it to his lawyers to make that case. It is not the case that some of us preferred, but it is the case that he wants to be made. He is not someone who can be scripted. It is his script and he is still likely to prevail in holding Maduro and his wife for trial.

The Venezuelan dictator captured by the Trump administration worked as a bus driver and union organizer before his ascent through the South American country’s political system, where he ultimately became a wanted man by the U.S. with a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest. 

Nicolás Maduro was ‘captured and flown out of the country’ early Saturday following a ‘large-scale strike’ by the U.S. military, according to President Donald Trump. 

The actions mark a stunning fall for Maduro, who was serving his third term as president of Venezuela. He led an administration that grappled with economic challenges, mass protests, disputed election results and allegations of narco-trafficking. 

Maduro was born in Venezuela’s capital of Caracas on Nov. 23, 1962. As a young man, he was sent to communist Cuba in 1986 for a year of ideological instruction — his only studies after high school.

Upon returning home, Maduro found work as a bus driver and union organizer. He embraced the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez after the then-army paratrooper in 1992 staged a failed coup against an unpopular austerity government. Around the same time, he met his longtime partner, Cilia Flores, a lawyer for the jailed leader. 

After Chávez was freed and elected president in 1998, Maduro, a young lawmaker, helped push his agenda of redistributing the OPEC nation’s oil wealth and political power. 

In 2000, Maduro was elected to Venezuela’s National Assembly. He later became the president of the National Assembly in 2005.

Then in 2006, Chávez appointed Maduro as Venezuela’s foreign minister. Six years later, Maduro was appointed as Venezuela’s vice president. 

When Maduro took power in 2013 following his mentor’s death from cancer, he struggled to bring order to the grief-stricken nation. Without ‘El Comandante’ in charge, the economy entered a death spiral — shrinking 71% from 2012 to 2020, with inflation topping 130,000% — and opponents and rivals inside the government saw an opportunity. 

Less than a year into Maduro’s presidency, hardliner opponents launched demonstrations demanding his exit.

Leaning heavily on Venezuela’s security forces, Maduro crushed the protests. However, with supermarket shelves empty amid widespread shortages, they resumed with more intensity three years later, leaving more than 100 people dead. In 2018, the International Criminal Court initiated a criminal investigation into possible crimes against humanity. 

The crackdown continued into the 2018 presidential race, which the opposition boycotted when several of its leaders were barred from running. Dozens of countries led by the U.S. condemned Maduro’s first re-election as illegitimate and recognized Juan Guaidó, the head of the National Assembly, as Venezuela’s elected leader. 

‘Since 2019, more than 50 countries, including the United States, have refused to recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s head of state,’ the State Department said in a profile of Maduro on its website.

‘Maduro helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organization comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials. As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,’ it added.  

‘Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns,’ the State Department continued. 

‘In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices,’ it also said.

Maduro was re-elected again in 2024 in another disputed election. 

‘Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo González Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election,’ then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at the time. 

Maduro then delivered a fiery inauguration speech in January 2025, likening himself to a biblical David fighting Goliath and accusing his opponents and their supporters in the U.S. of trying to turn his inauguration into a ‘world war.’ 

He said his enemies’ failure to block his inauguration to a third six-year term was ‘a great victory’ for Venezuela’s peace and national sovereignty. 

‘I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America,’ he said, after being draped with a sash in the red, yellow and blue of Venezuela’s flag. ‘I come from the people, I am of the people, and my power emanates from history and from the people. And to the people, I owe my whole life, body and soul.’ 

Months later, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest.

‘Maduro uses foreign terrorist organizations like TdA (Tren de Aragua), Sinaloa and Cartel of the Suns (Cartel de Soles) to bring deadly violence to our country,’ Bondi said in a video message in August 2025. ‘He is one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world and a threat to our national security.’ 

Fox News’ Michael Sinkewicz, Lucas Y. Tomlinson, Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

A super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump has nearly $300 million in its war chest heading into the 2026 midterms, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Thursday.

MAGA Inc. reported $294 million in cash on hand in its latest campaign finance disclosure, which the super PAC said will be used to support candidates aligned with the president’s agenda.

‘Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, MAGA Inc will have the resources to help candidates who support President Trump’s America First agenda of securing our border, keeping our streets safe, supercharging our economy, and making life more affordable for all Americans,’ a MAGA Inc. spokesperson said in a statement, according to the New York Post.

The super PAC raised $102 million in the second half of 2025, including 25 donations of at least $1 million.

The largest contribution came from OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman, who donated $25 million in September.

Brockman said in a post on X this week that he had become more politically active in 2025, including through political contributions that reflect ‘support for policies that advance American innovation and constructive dialogue between government and the technology sector.’

The fundraising haul came even though Trump is not on the ballot this year, underscoring the super PAC’s focus on supporting Republicans in upcoming races.

MAGA Inc. did not play a significant role in the 2022 midterms, opting instead to save its money for Trump’s 2024 campaign.

The super PAC spent $456 million supporting Trump’s bid to return to the White House, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks campaign finance data.

MAGA Inc. launched ads in November backing Republican candidate Matt Van Epps, who was endorsed by Trump and went on to defeat Democrat Aftyn Behn in a Tennessee congressional race.

Elon Musk, the billionaire technology entrepreneur and chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, has signaled an openness to supporting Republican candidates in the midterms.

‘America is toast if the radical left wins,’ he posted on X on Thursday. ‘They will open the floodgates to illegal immigration and fraud.’

Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

Former special counsel Jack Smith used a closed-door deposition with House Republicans last month to defend his investigations into Donald Trump’s alleged effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election and his alleged retention of certain classified documents, using the hours-long testimony to forcefully dispute the notion that his team had acted politically, and citing what he described as ample evidence to support the indictments that had been levied against Trump. 

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee in the Dec. 17 interview.

The interview was Smith’s first time appearing before Congress since he left his role as special counsel in 2024. And while much of the information was not new, the exchange was punctuated by sharp exchanges with Republicans on the panel, both on the strength of the case, and on his own actions taken during the course of the probe — most recently, on the tolling records his team sought from a handful of Republican lawmakers over the course of the investigation. Republicans have assailed the records as being at odds with the speech or debate clause of the Constitution.  

‘I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,’ Smith told the committee. ‘We took actions based on what the facts, and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.’

Republicans on the panel ultimately opted to publish the redacted transcript on New Year’s Eve, a decision that may have helped dull the impact of any news the 255-page document may have generated amid the broader hustle and bustle of the holiday season.

Here are some of the biggest moments and notable exchanges from the eight-hour hearing. 

New political tensions 

Smith was tapped by former Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach after leaving office in 2020. Smith had brought charges against Trump in both cases.

The charges were dropped after Trump’s election, in keeping with a longstanding Justice Department policy that discourages investigating sitting presidents for federal criminal charges, and Smith resigned from his role shortly after.

If nothing else, Smith’s Dec. 17 testimony underscored just how much has changed since Trump’s reelection in 2024. 

Trump, for his part, has used his first year back in office to follow through on his promises to go after his perceived political ‘enemies,’ including by revoking security clearances of many individuals, including employees of a D.C.-based law firm that represents Smith, and taking other punitive measures to punish or fire FBI agents involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, investigation.

During his testimony last month, Smith fiercely disputed the notion that Trump’s remarks about the 2020 election results would be protected by the First Amendment. 

‘Absololutely not,’ he said in response to a lawyer for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

The lawyer then ticked through a ‘long list of disputed elections’ in U.S. history and former presidents who have spoken out about ‘what they believed to be fraud,’ or other issues regarding election integrity. ‘I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core of the First Amendment rights of a presidential candidate, right?’

‘There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case,’ Smith said immediately. 

‘Powerful’ evidence

Smith told members that the special counsel ultimately gathered evidence against Trump that was, in his view, sufficient to secure a conviction.

‘He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to Jan. 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them, and then he directed them to the Capitol,’ Smith said of Trump’ actions in the run-up to Jan. 6. 

‘Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that, without question in my mind, endangered the life of his own vice president,’ Smith added. ‘And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.’

Other possible co-conspirators had not been charged, as Smith noted at one point during the interview. 

But Smith said in the testimony that his team had developed ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Trump ‘engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.’

They’d also developed what he described as ‘powerful evidence’ that Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office in January 2021 at his private Mar-a-Lago residence, and was obstructing the government’s efforts to recover the records.

Smith’s team had not determined how to proceed for possible ‘co-conspirators’

Smith said that, when the special counsel wound down in the wake of the 2024 elections, his team had not determined whether to charge the key Trump allies who may or may not have acted as co-conspirators, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman.

‘As we stated in the final report, we analyzed the evidence against different co-conspirators,’ Smith said. Smith reiterated his allegation that Trump was ‘the most culpable’ and ‘most responsible’ person for the alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. 

He said the special counsel had ‘determined that we did have evidence to charge people at a certain point in time.’ 

But at the time the investigation was wound down, they had not made ‘final determinations about that at the time that President Trump won reelection, meaning that our office was going to be closed down.’

He lamented the ousting of DOJ, FBI officials 

Smith used his opening remarks to lament the ousting of FBI agents and Justice Department officials involved in the Jan. 6 investigations.

‘I am both saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for doing their jobs and for having worked on those cases,’ Smith said.

His remarks came after the FBI in recent months ousted a handful of personnel involved in the Jan. 6 investigations, an effort individuals familiar with the action described to Fox News at the time as an act of ‘retaliation.’

Thousands of FBI personnel in February were forced to fill out a sprawling questionnaire asking employees detailed questions about any role they may have played in the investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots — ranging from whether they had testified in any criminal trials to when they last participated in investigation-related activity.

Smith’s team didn’t tell the courts that subpoenaed phone records belonged to lawmakers

Smith was grilled during the deposition about the highly scrutinized subpoenas his team issued to phone companies for data belonging to House and Senate lawmakers as part of his investigation, saying they aligned with the Justice Department’s policy at the time.

Smith said the Public Integrity Section signed off on the subpoenas, a point corroborated by records previously released by Grassley’s office. 

Those records also showed that the Public Integrity Section told prosecutors to be wary of concerns lawmakers could raise about the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which gives Congress members added protections.

The subpoenas to the phone companies were accompanied by gag orders blocking the lawmakers from learning about the existence of the subpoenas for at least one year. Smith said the D.C. federal court, which authorized the gag orders, would not have been aware that they applied to Congress members.’I don’t think we identified that, because I don’t think that was Department policy at the time,’ Smith said.

Asked during the deposition about who should be held accountable for lawmakers who felt that the seizure of a narrow set of their phone data was a constitutional violation, Smith said Trump should be held accountable.

‘These records are people, in the case of the Senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings,’ Smith said.

‘He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic Senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic Senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that’s — that lies with Donald Trump,’ he said.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) said Friday that federal agencies have terminated or reduced 55 contracts over the last three days with a combined ceiling value of $1.6 billion, claiming $542 million in savings.

DOGE, whose name nods to Elon Musk’s high-profile involvement, was launched during the opening days of President Donald Trump’s second administration as part of a broader effort to reshape federal spending and bureaucracy.

While Musk has since stepped back from the project, elements of the DOGE framework remain active across federal agencies.

In a post on X, the department wrote: ‘Contracts Update! Over the last 3 days, agencies terminated and descoped 55 wasteful contracts with a ceiling value of $1.6B and savings of $542M.’

The post listed several examples, including what it described as ‘a $47M State Dept. program support contract for ‘Africa / Djibouti, Somalia armored personnel carriers and Somalia National Army crew’,’ and ‘a $19.5M HHS IT Services contract for support for National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in designing, creating, updating, maintaining, and archiving online communications.’

DOGE also referenced ‘a $151k DoW education services contract for ‘Director’s Development Program in Leadership – Partnership course to be held at Northwestern University’,’ according to the post.

Screenshots shared with the DOGE post show federal contract records matching the descriptions and dollar amounts cited.

One screenshot shows a contract record tied to Somalia, listing professional program management support under a federal services code and identifying the country of service origin as Somalia. The contract description references support related to armored personnel carriers and Somalia National Army crews in Djibouti and Somalia.

A second screenshot shows an IT management support services contract based in the United States, categorized under computer systems design services. The description outlines work for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences focused on maintaining and managing online communications, including websites, webpages, mobile tools and social media platforms.

The DOGE post did not provide additional details about when the contracts were originally awarded, how much funding had already been obligated or spent, or which agency actions produced the savings figure cited in the post.

The announcement comes amid heightened scrutiny this week over several Somali-owned, government-funded daycare facilities in Minnesota that have been accused of fraudulently collecting millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House, DOGE, the State Department and HHS for additional information.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., remained silent Friday when his office was asked about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s day one orders that drew backlash from the international Jewish community.

Among his first actions as mayor, Mamdani revoked orders by his predecessor, Eric Adams, including Executive Order 61, which provided additional NYPD security to synagogues in the city and axed the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

He also overturned a restriction on boycotting Israel put in place by Adams. 

‘On his very first day as New York City mayor, Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel,’ the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote in a post on X. 

Schumer’s office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s multiple requests for comment on whether he supported Mamdani’s decisions or what message the Jewish communities in New York City should take away from them.

Schumer previously shied away from taking any stance on Mamdani after it became apparent the socialist candidate would capture the Democratic nomination for mayor.

‘We are continuing to talk,’ Schumer said whenever asked if he would extend an endorsement. 

His silence on his support continued even as Mamdani refused to outright denounce the use of the phrase ‘Globalize the intifada,’ a saying used by critics of Israel to advocate for the removal of the Jewish state. At the time, Mamdani’s posture toward the phrase drew condemnations and alarm from pro-Israel advocates.

Now with Mamdani in office, allies of Israel believe the new mayor’s posture could already prove a dangerous one.

The Consul General of Israel in New York, Ambassador Ofir Akunis, said the revocations ‘pose an immediate threat to the safety of Jewish communities in New York City and could lead to an increase in violent antisemitic attacks throughout the city.’

In the wake of several antisemitic attacks in recent weeks, Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the United States, has said the country must soundly condemn antisemitism ‘at every turn.’

After the deadly Bondi Beach shooting in mid-December that left 15 victims dead at a Jewish community event, Schumer maintained that the Jewish people had been uniquely targeted. 

‘The Jewish people have been collectively demonized. Our collective humanity demands we come together no matter our race, religion, our nationality and forcefully rebuke those forces,’ Schumer said. ‘As I have warned repeatedly, antisemitism is a scourge around the world.’

Fox News Digital’s Morgan Philips contributed to this report.

If you’re still unpacking results from the 2024 election, it’s time to give up.

2026 is an election year.

Welcome to the midterms. 

Health care. The economy. The ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill.’ All are factors as voters go to the polls this fall.

Democrats are trained on kitchen table issues this year. They hope that voters will forget about culture wars and have buyer’s remorse, perhaps flipping the House — and even the Senate.

‘They just don’t have enough money in their pockets to pay the bills to buy the medicine they need,’ said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. ‘Costs are skyrocketing. And in 2026, you’ll be hearing from us about costs over and over and over again.’

However, Republicans are bullish on maintaining Senate control.

‘I think you’re going to see a remarkable 2026. I mean we’re excited about the prospects for the economy,’ Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Bret Baier.

But Thune is cautious.

‘Typically there are headwinds in a midterm election,’ said Thune. ‘You can’t convince people of something they don’t feel.’

Retirements by Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Tina Smith, D-Minn., could create challenges for Democrats to hold those seats. Take, for example, why Republicans are spending so much time railing against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and the state’s welfare scandal and childcare questions. This fuels optimism that Republicans can prevail in the Gopher State.

‘President Trump was very close in Minnesota. It’s a four-point race. We know with the right candidate, we will be successful,’ said Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., head of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign (NRSC) to Fox News Digital’s Paul Steinhauser.

Republicans hope that Democrats nominate controversial candidates.

‘If I didn’t know better, I would say that some of these folks are Republican plants. They’re clearly from the loon wing of the Democratic Party,’ said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., about some Democratic Senate hopefuls. 

Republicans are rooting for a radioactive Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to secure the Democratic nod over a more moderate Democrat James Talarico — to potentially face Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton or Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, for the Texas Senate race.

‘They tell us that Texas is red. They are lying. We’re not,’ said Crockett. ‘Y’all ain’t never tried it the J.C. way.’

Graham Platner is a Democratic populist in Maine. He hopes to face Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me. — if he’s able to defeat Gov. Janet Mills in the primary. Platner has a history of inflammatory posts online.

‘The candidate for Senate in Maine for the Democrats calls me a Nazi, which is rich, coming from a guy who literally has a Nazi tattoo on his chest,’ said Vice President JD Vance.

Platner claims he didn’t know the symbolism of the tattoo at the time. He’s since covered it up.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is perhaps the most vulnerable Democrat facing re-election this cycle. Ossoff won a runoff as President Trump challenged the 2020 Georgia election results. Republicans intend to target Ossoff with his votes against re-opening the government during the shutdown.

But Democrats think they can swipe some seats from the GOP.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., is retiring. The Tar Heel State may represent the best overall pickup opportunity for Democrats.

Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is expected to face former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley in a barnburner.

And Democrats think former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, might be able to return to Washington by winning the state’s other Senate seat this fall. 

Brown likely faces Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio. Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Husted to the Senate to succeed Vance when he left the Senate and became vice president. A former Ohio lieutenant governor, Husted has never campaigned statewide for Senate.

This is why Democrats are focused on your pocketbook and health care in 2026.

‘We’re going to get it done by getting it on some piece of legislation, or we’re going to get it done by marching through into the midterms and winning,’ predicted Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

And the biggest factor may be who’s not on the ballot this year: President Donald Trump. Republicans saw examples of that in 2018 and 2022. Voters often see midterms as a presidential report card. 

That’s possibly working against Republicans as they attempt to cling to power in the House. History is against the GOP in 2026. The President’s party customarily loses about 26 seats in the first midterm. But House Republicans aim to run on their accomplishments.

‘So far, House Republicans have passed 413 bills. This year, we’ve codified 68 of President Trump’s America First executive orders,’ said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. ‘We look forward to continuing all that work when we return in 2026, and we go into an epic midterm election cycle.

Epic is right.

Republicans tried to erect a political heat shield to deflect midterm norms. Republicans drew new, GOP-friendly districts in Texas and Missouri. But those districts are a lighter shade of red. That could dilute the GOP base vote as these districts as battlegrounds.

‘We have to make sure that we’ve got an edge. This is a big deal, and we’ve gotta be politically smart. And I hate to say this, for a change,’ Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J. said on Fox News Channel. 

Democrats countered the Republican maneuvering with redistricting of their own. Particularly in California.

‘Our focus is on the swing districts, the purple districts across the country,’ said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). ‘It’s why we expanded our map of offensive opportunities.’

But it’s risky if Democrats run candidates who are too progressive for certain seats.

Democrats plan investigations and subpoenas of the Trump administration if they win the House. One Democrat is eyeing the Pentagon.

‘When we take back the House in 2026, every single one of their actions is going to be under an MRI. We’re going to evaluate them up against the laws of war. And they will be held accountable for violating those laws of war,’ Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-Mass., told ABC News.

But House control could hinge on the Supreme Court. Around 20 House seats could shift toward the GOP if the high court unwinds part of the Voting Rights Act. That law gave Democrats an edge in multiple districts populated by minorities. 

A ruling requiring new districts could drastically upset the balance of power for this year’s House contests.