President Donald Trump has adopted an interventionist posture to justify toppling dictator Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela and has signaled he’ll take the same approach with other Latin American countries next as his administration seeks to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Interventionism is a foreign policy approach by which one country intervenes in another state’s affairs. The U.S. has engaged in several interventions abroad, including launching an invasion of Iraq in 2003 that led to the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. 

While Trump has blasted previous administrations for actions in the Middle East and vowed he would bring an end to ‘endless wars’ while ushering in an ‘America First’ agenda prioritizing U.S. interests, Trump signed off on conducting a ‘large scale strike’ against Venezuela and capturing Maduro Saturday, prompting concern, primarily from Democrats, about starting another lengthy conflict. 

The strikes in Venezuela come on the heels of several other major military operations from the Trump administration, including strikes in Nigeria on Christmas Day against Islamic State militants in response to attacks against Christians in the region, strikes in Syria in December against Islamic State operatives after an ambush against U.S. troops there, and strikes in June against the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. 

But unlike the strikes in the Middle East, the operations in Venezuela require additional U.S. involvement. Trump said Sunday that the U.S. will run Caracas, Venezuela, until a safe transition can occur, thrusting the U.S. into the most significant military intervention of Trump’s presidencies as he wages a campaign to ‘reassert American dominance in the Western Hemisphere.’

‘Trump has never been an advocate of regime change, but that is what he has on his hands now. Unlike the Fordow strikes, where Trump acted and then said, ‘The fight is over,’ he will not have that luxury here in Venezuela,’ retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, now a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said in a statement Saturday. 

Most Republicans have backed Trump’s actions in Venezuela, although some from the more anti-interventionist camp of the GOP have voiced skepticism, including outgoing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who said in a social media post Saturday, ‘This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end.’

Meanwhile, Democrats have issued caution that the U.S. may be entangling itself in another complicated conflict. For example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed that the U.S. is on the path to another ‘endless war.’

‘The American people are worried that this is creating an endless war,’ Schumer said in an interview with ABC News Sunday. ‘The very thing that Donald Trump campaigned against over and over and over again was no more endless wars. And, right now, we’re headed right into one with no barriers, with no discussion.’

Trump announced Saturday that U.S. special forces conducted a strike against Caracas, Venezuela, and seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The two were taken to New York and appeared in a Manhattan federal court on Monday on drug charges. Both pleaded not guilty. 

In addition to running Venezuela, Trump said the U.S. was ‘ready to stage a second and much larger attack’ if needed in Caracas. Likewise, he signaled Sunday that other Latin American countries could also face regime change, singling out Cuba and issuing a word of caution to Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro.

‘Cuba only survives because of Venezuela,’ Trump said.

‘Colombia is very sick too — run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and sending it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long,’ Trump said. 

Trump’s words and actions come as he’s revived the Monroe Doctrine, rebranded as the ‘Don-roe Doctrine,’ that originally sought to limit European influence in Latin America and to protect U.S. influence in the region.

The Monroe Doctrine, first introduced in 1823 by President James Monroe, specifically cautioned European nations against further colonization in Central and South America. Later, it was used to justify U.S. actions in the region as an ‘international police power’ under former President Theodore Roosevelt, according to the National Archives.

‘The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal. But we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a lot,’ Trump said Saturday. ‘They now call it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine.’ … We sort of forgot about it. It was very important, but we forgot about it. We don’t forget about it anymore. Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.’

Katherine Thompson, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital Tuesday it’s too early to tell if Trump’s future approach to the Western Hemisphere will include more interventionist activity.

However, she said the ‘expansive’ definition of what America’s core interests are ‘opens the administration up to risk of strategic drift away from the ‘America First’ framework, diminishes the principle of prioritization and allows greater tolerance for an interventionist approach.’ 

So far, Trump has claimed his actions in Venezuela are complementary to his ‘America First’ priorities because he wants the U.S. to have ‘good neighbors.’ 

Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, a Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) 2022 General and Admirals Program participant and a member of JINSA’s Iran Policy Project, said Trump’s actions in Venezuela are on the same page as the president’s ‘America First’ agenda.

That means holding other nations who mistreat their people accountable for their own benefit and for the benefit of the American people, he said. 

‘They’re clearly aligned. This is exactly what he’s talked about. … This is an accountability for them,’ Harward said.

For those concerned about the U.S. military’s actions in Venezuela, Vice President JD Vance has attempted to soothe their fears. Vance leans toward the non-interventionist wing of the Trump administration and historically has backed a foreign policy doctrine that supports minimal interference with other nations’ affairs.

‘I understand the anxiety over the use of military force, but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing?’ Vance said in a social media post Sunday. ‘Great powers don’t act like that.’ 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the U.S. did not require approval from Congress to conduct the strike since it wasn’t an ‘invasion’ and claimed actions in Caracas, Venezuela, were part of a ‘law enforcement function to capture a drug trafficker.’ 

The Trump administration repeatedly stated that it did not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state and insisted he was the leader of a drug cartel. 

But lawmakers, especially Democrats, have called into question the legality of the operation in Venezuela, which was conducted without Congress’ approval. 

‘This has been a profound constitutional failure,’ the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement Saturday. ‘Congress — not the President — has the sole power to authorize war. Pursuing regime change without the consent of the American people is a reckless overreach and an abuse of power.

‘The question now is not whether Maduro deserved removal — it is what precedent the United States has just set, and what comes next.’ 

The White House said Tuesday that President Donald Trump views acquiring Greenland as a national security priority and that the use of the U.S. military remains an option as his administration weighs how to pursue control of the Arctic territory.

‘President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States,’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News. 

‘The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.’

The comments mark the clearest statement to date from the White House suggesting military force could be considered, as Trump renews pressure on Denmark over Greenland’s strategic role in U.S. defense and missile detection in the Arctic.

European leaders and Canada rallied behind Greenland on Tuesday following Trump’s renewed push to gain control of the Danish territory, according to Reuters. Leaders from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark said Greenland belongs to its people and that only Denmark and Greenland can decide the island’s future.

Arizona Democrat Sen. Ruben Gallego also announced Tuesday a bill to stop Trump from invading ‘another country on a whim’ over Greenland after Operation Absolute Resolve captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro over the weekend.

‘What’s happening in Venezuela shows us that we can’t just ignore Trump’s reckless threats. His dangerous behavior puts American lives and our global credibility at risk. I’m introducing this amendment to make it clear that Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action, and to force Republicans to choose whether they’re going to finally stand up or keep enabling Trump’s chaos,’ Gallego said in a statement on the legislation.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, who was named as Trump’s special envoy to Greenland last month, said in an interview with CNBC that ‘security should be a major concern for the United States.’

‘We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,’ Trump said during a press gaggle on Air Force One Monday. 

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s announcement that he is dropping his re-election bid amid a massive fraud scandal in the state is raising questions about the vetting process he received to be Kamala Harris’ running mate. 

Following Walz’s Monday announcement that he will not run for re-election as the state faces a fraud scandal that prosecutors say could total as much as $9 billion, many on social media from both sides of the aisle wondered aloud why he was elevated to the presidential ticket despite the fraud concerns which date back to at least 2019 when he was elected governor. 

‘What did Kamala Harris’ veep vetting team know about Tim Walz, and when did they know it?’ Conservative commentator and columnist Josh Hammer posted on X. 

‘This will dog VP Harris and she will need to answer questions about Tim Walz and her answers need to be CLEAR.’ former Jill Biden Press Secretary Michael LaRosa posted on X. ‘If I were advising the former VP, I would put this to bed NOW and release a statement ASAP. Rip the Band-Aid off and get this behind her. Her judgment will be questioned and the trust she placed into those who vetted her VP options will also be questioned. How could they possibly have missed this?’

Harris released a statement later in the day wishing Walz the best and touting his ‘life in public service’ but did not specifically address the fraud scandal or vetting process.

‘The vetting clearly failed,’ retired Minnesota State Patrol Lt. John Nagel told Fox News Digital. Nagel is running for Congress as a Republican against Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar.

‘By the time Governor Tim Walz was selected, Minnesota’s fraud scandals were already public, already under federal investigation, and already raising serious questions about oversight. That wasn’t hidden information — it was an open and growing issue, despite a local media environment that protects Democrats.’ 

Former Obama-era attorney general Eric Holder was a key figure in the vetting process for the Harris campaign, and he defended his due diligence on Walz, telling CNN that ‘nothing of substance’ was missed in regard to Walz’s record, which Nagel told Fox News Digital ‘raised more questions than it answered’ given the visibility of fraud concerns. 

‘Either possibility is troubling,’ Nagel told Fox News Digital. ‘If Kamala Harris didn’t know, that points to a deeply flawed vetting process and an insane level of hubris. If she did know and proceeded anyway, that suggests accountability simply wasn’t a priority.’

Michael Ceraso, a veteran Democratic strategist, told Fox News Digital the Harris campaign was likely aware of the fraud reports, but internally compared it to Trump’s controversies and concluded it’s ‘not as bad.’

‘Maybe the standard was different because they understood who they were running against, and maybe they were blasé about it because they were looking at their opponent and saying, well, this may not be as comparable to this, and so we can excuse this because this guy over here has done X, Y, and Z,’ Ceraso explained.

Going forward, Ceraso said the Democratic Party could arguably ‘put itself in a position as being the values party’ by placing more emphasis on vetting issues on their own merits rather than comparing records to Trump. 

‘The Democratic Party needs to be better because we can all be better, but I think comparing ourselves to a president that we obviously disagree with morally and saying, well, we’re not as bad as that, but still let a multi-billion dollar corruption thing happen with no accountability. That’s still pretty bad.’

Nagel told Fox News Digital that if Harris decides to run for political office in the future that this issue will likely come up.

‘Voters deserve to know how decisions at the highest levels are made — and whether political considerations outweighed transparency and accountability,’ Nagel said. ‘Unfortunately, if Kamala decides to run in 2028, legacy media outlets will likely not press her on her choice of Walz. I expect that to only be raised in Democrat circles during a presidential debate during the primaries.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Harris’ office for comment.

Walz has also faced criticism in recent days for comments he made on the campaign trail touting childcare programs in Minnesota, suggesting it should be a model for the nation, even though the Feeding Our Future scandal had been bubbling for years.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., railed against President Donald Trump’s weekend strikes in Venezuela, but his criticism comes after a history of taking a softer approach to socialist dictators like former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Sanders, like several of his colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus, argued that Trump’s decision to strike Venezuela’s capital Caracas without congressional approval broke the law and was another instance of the administration leapfrogging Congress’ war powers.

‘Donald Trump has, once again, shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,’ Sanders said in a statement. ‘The President of the United States does NOT have the right to unilaterally take this country to war, even against a corrupt and brutal dictator like Maduro.’

But the lawmaker’s decision to call Maduro a dictator is a shift. In previous years, Sanders has declined to place that label on him.

When Sanders was on the presidential campaign trail in 2019, he opted not to call Maduro a dictator, instead saying he would support an effort to ensure free and fair elections in the country.

‘I think it’s fair to say that the last election was undemocratic, but there are still Democratic operations taking place in that country,’ Sanders said during a town hall at the time. ‘The point is, what I’m calling for right now is an internationally supervised fair election.’

Maduro, who was first elected in 2013, is accused of human rights abuses and working with cartels and narco gangs in South America and Mexico to distribute illicit drugs into the U.S.

However, Sanders has often accused Trump of engaging in authoritarianism.

‘Under this administration, authoritarianism has taken root in our country,’ Sanders said on X in 2020. ‘As long as I am here, I will work with progressives, with moderates, and, yes, with conservatives to preserve this nation from a threat that so many of our heroes fought and died to defeat.’

The lawmaker has also been supportive of policies under former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. During his last presidential run, Sanders came under fire after a speech he made in the 1980s when he lauded the socialist policies installed by Castro and his regime.

Sanders was pressed on the speech during another town hall event on the campaign trail, where he noted that he had been consistently critical of authoritarian regimes across the globe.

Still, he contended that ‘there were a lot of folks in Cuba at that point who were illiterate. He formed the literacy brigade.’

‘You know what, I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing,’ Sanders said.

Fox News Digital did not immediately hear back from Sanders’ office for comment.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., introduced legislation aimed at blocking President Donald Trump from invading Greenland on Tuesday.

Gallego announced the legislative push on X, saying Congress must stop Trump ‘before he invades another country on a whim.’ The bill is one of several Democrat-backed efforts seeking to stop Trump from taking military action against other countries following the capture of now former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

‘Families are getting crushed by rising grocery and housing costs, inflation is up, and Trump’s name is all over the Epstein files. Instead of doing anything to fix those problems, Trump is trying to distract people by threatening to start wars and invade countries – first in Venezuela, and now against our NATO ally Denmark,’ Gallego said in a statement.

‘What’s happening in Venezuela shows us that we can’t just ignore Trump’s reckless threats. His dangerous behavior puts American lives and our global credibility at risk. I’m introducing this amendment to make it clear that Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action, and to force Republicans to choose whether they’re going to finally stand up or keep enabling Trump’s chaos,’ he added.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One over the weekend that the U.S. needs Greenland, a Danish territory, for ‘national security.’

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller doubled down on Trump’s remarks on Monday, telling CNN that Greenland ‘should be part of the United States.’

CNN anchor Jake Tapper pressed Miller about whether the Trump administration could rule out military action to take the Arctic island.

‘Greenland has a population of 30,000 people,’ Miller said. ‘The real question is by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland. What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?’

‘The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States,’ he added.

Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a Monday statement posted on Facebook that his country is ‘not an object of superpower rhetoric.’

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen argued that a U.S. takeover of Greenland would effectively destroy NATO.

‘But I also want to make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. Including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War,’ she said.

Fox News’ Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.

The State Department has intensified its criticism of Iran’s regime on its Persian-language account since the outbreak of nationwide protests against the ayatollahs, mirroring President Donald Trump’s forceful warning to Tehran.

Trump recently posted, ‘If Iran shots (sic) and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J.TRUMP.’

‘President Trump’s latest truth social post regarding Iran speaks for itself,’ a U.S. State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

The State Department’s reinforcement of Trump’s pledge to aid Iranian demonstrators comes amid reports that protesters had taken control of many streets in Abdanan, in Ilam province in western Iran, on Tuesday. They chanted ‘Death to Khamenei’ and ‘This year is a year of blood, Seyed Ali (Khamenei) will be overthrown,’ according to videos sent to Iran International news organization.

The State Department’s Persian-language account, @USABehFarsi, appeared to issue a stark warning to Iran’s totalitarian rulers. ‘President Trump is a man of action. If you didn’t know before, now you do. Don’t mess with President Trump.’ The black-and-white picture showed Trump with his leadership team watching elite U.S. army forces seize the former Iran-backed Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

Trump’s social media posts and the statements coming from the State Department’s account have emboldened Iranians both inside and outside of the country.

Potkin Azarmehr, a British-Iranian journalist, noted the contrast with previous administrations. ‘Well, what a contrast to Obama’s time when protesters in Iran in 2009 were angrily chanting, ‘Obama, are you with us or with them?’ Any international support, whether at grassroots level or government level is encouraging. Knowing that the world knows about you,’ he added that ‘The question is where are the Western activist elite protesters? Why are they not protesting? Are they on the side of the ayatollahs? An archaic religious apartheid?’

Iran analyst Alirzeza Nader said, ‘I think State is right to say that the alternative to the current regime will come from inside Iran. And that Iranians will choose their own leaders. Yes, it’s definitely better now. Unfortunately, the Obama and Biden administrations pushed the reformist line (the Reformist line espoused by Rouhani and Khatami). My advice to the Trump administration: stay neutral when it comes to the opposition’s leadership. Let Iranians figure it out.’

The former Iranian presidents, Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Khatami, promised mild reforms but remain wedded to the Islamic Republic of Iran — a regime that has been repeatedly classified by the State Department as a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Nadav Mohebb, who worked as a Persian media analyst for the State Department’s Public Affairs Bureau, said about the State Department’s Persian-language X account that ‘During the Biden administration, this account was effectively turned into a ghost town and largely lost its relevance and impact.’

He said, ‘Following President Trump’s recent tweet, we have seen a renewed level of activity reminiscent of his first term — an approach that has again drawn the attention of Iranians. Trump’s message effectively removed the account’s excessive caution, and over the past four days its anti-regime tone has noticeably intensified.’

Mohebb said, ‘The account should avoid involvement in opposition infighting, remain sensitive to Iranian public sentiment, and operate in alignment with the prevailing mood of Persian Twitter. I hope Trump’s warning message to the regime will serve as a catalyst for upgrading the messaging strategy of this account and restoring its former effectiveness.’

Reza Parchizadeh, an Iranian-American expert on the regime, said, ‘The State Department’s Persian-language account is performing effectively. Its messaging is deliberately structured to project a sense of American support and hope toward Iranian protesters, while also attempting to reflect the breadth and diversity of protest activity rather than treating it episodically or selectively. In itself, this represents a notable shift in approach.’

He noted, ‘The Obama era was fundamentally different in orientation and intent. That administration prioritized reaching a diplomatic accommodation with the Islamic Republic and reintegrating the regime into the international system. Within that framework, popular protests and organized opposition inside Iran were largely downplayed by the State Department in order to avoid complicating negotiations or signaling regime vulnerability.’

House Republicans’ investigation into fraud within Minnesota’s social programs is likely to expand, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital.

‘We need to know how deep this fraud in taxpayer-funded programs runs, not just in Minnesota, but across the country. The House Oversight Committee will expand its investigation to other states, because waste, fraud, and abuse cannot be tolerated anywhere,’ Comer said Tuesday.

The House Oversight Committee is probing allegations that federal and state funds were misused in Minnesota, an investigation that’s thrust top officials in the state government under scrutiny.

It’s also proved to be a potent political cudgel for Republicans against progressive leaders like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison.

Both were summoned to Capitol Hill by Comer, who is holding a pair of high-profile hearings in the coming weeks while the federal government investigates allegations of fraud.

The first such event, taking place on Wednesday, will feature testimony from three Republicans in the state legislature. Walz and Ellison were summoned for a follow-up hearing on Feb. 10.

Comer said he would use the probe ‘as a blueprint to expand oversight and pursue accountability in other states’ as well.

It comes after Walz announced he would drop his bid for a third term as governor on Monday, citing the fervor around the fraud investigations.

‘Every minute that I spend defending my own political interests would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity, and the cynics who want to prey on our differences,’ Walz said.

Walz previously said his administration has taken steps to crack down on the fraud, but argued federal officials are overinflating and politicizing the scope of the damage.

But Comer said Walz still ‘needs to testify under oath about what he knew, and when he knew it, about this massive fraud and money-laundering operation.’

Federal prosecutors in Minnesota have charged multiple people with stealing more than $240 million from the Federal Child Nutrition Program through the Minnesota-based nonprofit Feeding Our Future.

However, the probe has since widened to multiple state-run programs being investigated for potential fraud.

Childcare providers receiving state funding, mainly within the Somali community, are also under scrutiny.

President Donald Trump floated that all presidents and vice presidents should take cognitive tests, days after bragging that he successfully completed a third cognitive exam. 

Trump, 79, has frequently taken aim at former President Joe Biden amid multiple books and reports detailing the decline of Biden’s mental faculties while in office, and similarly cast doubt on whether other Democrats could pass a cognitive test. 

‘Do you think Walz could pass a cognitive test … Do you think Kamala could?’ Trump said Tuesday at the Kennedy Center for the House GOP Member Retreat. ‘I don’t think Gavin could. He’s got a good line of crap, but other than that, he couldn’t pass.’ 

Trump was referring to former Vice President Kamala Harris, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Spokespeople for Harris and Walz did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

In response to a request for comment, Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon replied to Fox News Digital: ‘HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.’ 

Trump’s statements come after he claimed he ‘ACED’ another cognitive examination, and backs mandatory cognitive exams to prevent ”STUPID’ or INCOMPETENT PEOPLE!’ from leading the country. 

‘The White House Doctors have just reported that I am in ‘PERFECT HEALTH,’ and that I ‘ACED’ (Meaning, was correct on 100% of the questions asked!), for the third straight time, my Cognitive Examination, something which no other President, or previous Vice President, was willing to take,’ Trump posted to Truth Social Friday.

Trump also said Tuesday that he faces a catch-22 when it comes to completing a medical exam — or not — amid recent questions surrounding his health. For example, concern has stemmed from bruising on his hands and reports regarding swollen ankles. 

‘If I don’t do a medical exam, they say, ‘Trump’s not doing an exam. There must be something wrong with him.’ If I do the exam, they say, ‘Why did he do this? Why did he do this part of an exam? He did too much. There’s something wrong with him,’’ Trump said. 

Trump’s comments come as he clarified to The Wall Street Journal in a piece published Thursday that he received a CT scan, and not a more thorough, time-consuming MRI scan, for a medical examination he underwent in October. Trump said in the interview that he regrets taking the CT scan because it provided ‘ammunition’ to those who have questioned his overall health. 

The October visit came after Trump’s annual physical at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland. Afterward, White House physician, Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, claimed that the president ‘remains in excellent health.’

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has dismissed questions about Trump’s bruised hands and attributed the markings in July to ‘frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.’ Likewise, she said that Trump’s swollen legs are a ‘benign and common condition’ that sometimes plagues those over the age of 70. 

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

Health insurance companies are being summoned to Capitol Hill for a pair of blockbuster hearings as Americans across the country deal with rising costs for their care, Fox News Digital is first to learn.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees health policy, and the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy, are both holding hearings on the rising cost of healthcare in the U.S.

It’s not immediately clear which companies will be represented or if they will allow executives to appear voluntarily.

But the announcement appears to be the House GOP’s move to counter-program an expected vote this week on extending enhanced Obamacare subsidies that expired at the end of 2025.

Obamacare subsidies were expanded in 2020 and 2021 to be available to more people during the COVID-19 pandemic, but then-Democratic majorities in Congress were only able to extend those for a finite period of time.

Whether to extend those subsidies was the subject of fierce debate on Capitol Hill in the waning months of 2025.

The vast majority of Republicans are opposed to extending the subsidies, dismissing them as a pandemic-era relic that’s part of a broken federal healthcare system.

Republicans have also argued that the subsidies only eased costs for 7% of Americans and did nothing to tackle the root causes of high healthcare costs.

But the moderate GOP lawmakers and Democrats who support extending the program have pointed out that an extension would give Congress more time to work on a more permanent solution to healthcare while avoiding the cost cliff seen at the end of last year.

A small group of moderate Republicans joined Democrats in late December to successfully force a vote on a three-year extension, which is taking place on Thursday.

The legislation is likely dead on arrival in the Senate if it passes, however.

House Republicans passed a healthcare bill just before leaving Washington for their two-week holiday break in December.

The Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act includes provisions to codify association health plans, which allow small businesses and people who are self-employed to band together to purchase healthcare coverage plans, giving them access to greater bargaining power.

Republicans also plan to appropriate funding for cost-sharing reductions beginning in 2027, which are designed to lower out-of-pocket medical costs in the individual healthcare market. House GOP leadership aides said it would bring down the cost of premiums by 12%.

As Venezuela enters the post-Nicolas Maduro era, former officials and regional experts warn the country may be facing not a democratic transition, but a period of deeper instability and internal conflict between possible successors that some warn could be even worse than Maduro.

Marshall Billingslea, the former assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes in the U.S. Treasury Department, said Maduro’s removal has exposed a fractured system that was never held together by a single strongman, but by competing criminal power centers now moving independently.

‘The cartel has always been a loose association, with each of the mafia bosses having their own centers of gravity,’ Billingslea said. ‘Maduro was the frontman, but he didn’t exercise total control. Now we’re seeing each of those centers spinning off on their own.’

Billingslea said the capture of Cilia Flores, Maduro’s wife, was as consequential as Maduro’s removal itself.

‘The capture of Cilia Flores is a particularly big deal because she was the brains behind the operation and the one who cleared out potential rivals,’ he said. ‘Her removal is equally significant.’

Billingslea outlined what he described as five competing power centers, four within the regime and one outside it. ‘The removal of Maduro, and particularly the removal of Cilia Flores, leaves a huge power vacuum in the cartel,’ he said. ‘We haven’t yet reached a new equilibrium here.’

In the interim, he foresees a high risk of internal power struggles, violence and further repression as rival factions maneuver to secure control in a post-Maduro Venezuela. But he notes that the Trump administration anticipates this and is executing a clear-eyed strategy to first secure U.S. core interests, followed by the gradual restoration of democracy, all without needing American ‘boots on the ground.’

Delcy Rodríguez takes over, but power remains contested

Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s longtime vice president, was quickly installed as interim leader. But her rise has done little to reassure Venezuelans or international observers that meaningful change is coming.

Rodríguez is deeply embedded in the Maduro system and has long played a central role in overseeing Venezuela’s internal intelligence and security apparatus. According to regional reporting, her focus since taking office has been consolidating control within those institutions rather than signaling political reform.

Former U.S. and regional officials say Delcy Rodríguez’s rise has revived long-standing questions about who truly influences her decisions as she moves to consolidate power.

Those officials point to Rodríguez’s deep ties with Cuban intelligence, which helped build and operate Venezuela’s internal security and surveillance apparatus over the past two decades. Cuban operatives played a central role in shaping how the regime monitored dissent and protected senior leadership, embedding themselves inside Venezuela’s intelligence services.

At the same time, former officials say Rodríguez appears to be testing cooperation with Washington, creating uncertainty over how much leverage the United States actually holds. Some view her limited engagement with U.S. demands as tactical, aimed at buying time while she works to secure loyalty inside the regime and neutralize rival factions.

A former Venezuelan official previously told Fox News Digital that Rodríguez ‘hates the West’ and represents continuity with the Maduro regime, not a break from it.

Cabello mobilizes loyalists

Diosdado Cabello, one of the most feared figures in the country, has emerged as a central player in the post-Maduro scramble for control.

Cabello, who wields influence over the ruling party and interior security, has been rallying armed colectivos and loyalist groups. Those groups have been active in the streets, detaining opponents and reinforcing regime authority through intimidation.

Sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for corruption and alleged ties to drug-trafficking networks, Cabello is widely viewed as a figure capable of consolidating power through force rather than institutions.

Jorge Rodríguez holds the levers of control

Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly and brother of Delcy Rodríguez, remains one of the regime’s most important political operators.

Rodríguez has served as a key strategist for Maduro, overseeing communications, elections and internal coordination. Recent reporting indicates he continues to work closely with his sister to maintain control over intelligence and security structures, reinforcing the regime’s grip despite Maduro’s removal.

Experts say Rodríguez could play a central role in shaping any managed transition that preserves the system Maduro built.

Padrino López

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, long considered the backbone of Maduro’s survival, remains a critical figure as well.

While Padrino López has not publicly positioned himself as a successor, analysts note that the armed forces are no longer unified behind a single leader. Senior generals are split across competing factions, raising the risk of internal clashes or a shift toward overt military rule if civilian authority weakens further.

Beyond the power struggle among regime elites, Venezuela faces a broader danger.

Large parts of the country are already influenced by criminal syndicates and armed groups. As centralized authority weakens, those actors could exploit the vacuum, expanding control over territory and smuggling routes.

Experts warned that an uncontrolled collapse could unleash forces more violent and less predictable than Maduro’s centralized repression, and the events unfolding now suggest that risk is growing.

Outside the regime, opposition leader María Corina Machado remains the most popular political figure among Venezuelan voters. But popularity alone may not be enough to translate into power.

Machado lacks control over security forces, intelligence agencies or armed groups. As repression intensifies and rival factions maneuver, her ability to convert public support into political authority remains uncertain.

Maduro’s fall, analysts say, did not dismantle Venezuela’s power structure. It fractured it.

With armed loyalists in the streets, rival factions competing behind the scenes, and an interim leader struggling to assert authority, Venezuela now faces a dangerous period in which the aftermath of Maduro’s rule could prove more chaotic — and potentially more brutal — than what came before, experts say. For Venezuelans, the question is no longer whether Maduro is gone, but whether anything that replaces him will be better.