Latin American Publications!

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order authorizing him to impose tariffs on imports from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba. According to Trump, the situation in Cuba “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the security and foreign policy of Washington, and he has therefore declared a “national emergency.”

Based on these unfounded accusations, Trump has established a tariff system. According to this system, “an additional ad valorem duty may be imposed on imports of goods that are products of a foreign country that directly or indirectly sells or otherwise provides any oil to Cuba.”

The measure will take effect at midnight on January 30. The document states that the order may be modified if new information emerges, recommendations from senior officials arise, or circumstances change. It also outlines actions to be taken should a foreign country retaliate against the United States in response to this aggression, in order to maintain effectiveness.

The blockade against #Cuba that some people say it is a fiction, now would implemented through blackmail on third countries. Voila.https://t.co/THXI0mkUmT

— Dr C José Ramón Cabañas Rodriguez (@JoseRCabanas) January 30, 2026

The order also indicates that if the government of Cuba or another affected country adopts significant measures and “aligns itself” with Washington on national security and foreign policy matters, the order could also be modified.

The US ruler argued that the Cuban government has adopted extraordinary measures that harm and threaten the United States, aligning itself with and providing support to countries considered hostile, as well as to “transnational terrorist groups,  and other malign actors opposed” to Washington.

It accuses the Cuban government, without providing evidence, of having long provided “defense, intelligence, and security assistance to adversaries” of the United States in the Western Hemisphere, evading US and international sanctions, and trying to hinder Washington’s efforts to deal with malicious actors in the region.

For over six decades, Cuba has been subjected to a criminal US blockade and illegal sanctions in a multifaceted, unsuccessful regime-change operation. The most recent US sanctions launched during Trump’s first term, which were recently strengthened, have brought pain and despair upon many defenseless Cubans.

Cuba’s condemnation
On Thursday night, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez harshly criticized the new measures taken by the US against Cuba. “We condemn in the strongest terms the new escalation by the US against Cuba,” the minister wrote.

He explained that a total blockade of fuel supplies to Cuba is currently being proposed. “To justify this, they rely on a long list of lies that attempt to portray Cuba as a threat it is not,” he added.

“Every day, there is new evidence that the only threat to the peace, security, and stability of the region, and the only malignant influence, is that exerted by the US government against the nations and peoples of Our America, whom it tries to subject to its dictates, deprive of their resources, mutilate their sovereignty, and deprive of their independence,” Rodríguez added.

According to the Cuban foreign minister, Washington “also resorts to blackmail and coercion to get other countries to join its universally condemned blockade policy against Cuba, threatening them with the imposition of arbitrary and abusive tariffs if they refuse, in violation of the rules of free trade.”

“We condemn before the world this brutal act of aggression against Cuba and its people, who, for over 65 years, have been subjected to the longest and cruelest economic blockade ever applied against an entire nation, and who are now promised to be subjected to extreme living conditions,” he summarized.

Venezuela’s condemnation
Venezuela strongly condemned the new US executive order against Cuba. A statement released by Foreign Minister Yván Gil noted that these actions flagrantly violate international law and the principles of global trade.

Likewise, it denounced any measure aimed at conditioning the exchange of goods and services as a violation of sovereignty. The communique adds that free trade is a fundamental pillar of international economic relations, and should not be subject to coercion that impedes the development of sovereign peoples.

Marco Rubio Testifies to US Senate About Attack on Venezuela: His Claims Do Not Add Up

The following is the full unofficial translation of the Venezuelan statement:

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela condemns the executive order issued by the government of the United States of America. The order seeks to impose punitive measures on countries that decide to maintain legitimate trade relations with the Republic of Cuba.

Any measure that limits or conditions the exchange of goods and services, as well as the freedom of states to sovereignly choose their trading partners, constitutes a violation of international law and the fundamental principles governing global trade. Free trade is a core principle of international economic relations between sovereign states. It cannot be subject to any form of coercion that impedes the free exchange of goods and services.

Venezuela expresses its solidarity with the people of Cuba and calls for collective action from the international community to address the humanitarian consequences of aggression of this nature. To consider Cuba a threat to the national security of the United States of America is absurd and poses a serious threat to its very existence as a nation.

Caracas, Jan. 30, 2026

(Alba Ciudad) with Orinoco Tribune content

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/JRE/SF

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.

Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”

“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”

Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.

The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.

The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.

Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.

The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.

Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.

General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.

Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.

GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.

Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.

In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”

Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.

Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.

The post Venezuela Approves Pro-Business Oil Reform as Trump Issues New Sanctions Waiver appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.

---

From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

By James Patrick Jordan  –  Jan 28, 2026

Illegal US military strikes on January 3, 2026, against Venezuela have elicited a flood of resolutions from labor unions. Some of these have focused solely on the US aggression and solidarity with the Venezuelan people. Others have gone further to condemn the kidnapping and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In at least one case, a resolution by the Tucson chapter of the National Writers Union has called for systemic changes to how the AFL-CIO, the US’ largest labor confederation, and its Solidarity Center (formerly the American Center for International Labor Solidarity), conducts its international relations. In each case, union members are undertaking important steps towards peace and solidarity as well as opening up possibilities for the emergence of a truly independent US labor movement. 

These resolutions are the latest in a series of cases where labor has broken with US foreign policies, including military strikes and acts of war. Beginning with the AFL-CIO’s 2005 passage of the USLAW Resolution 53: “The War in Iraq”, the federation and both affiliated and unaffiliated unions have gone on to speak out against coups in Honduras and Bolivia, repressive immigration policies, neoliberal trade agreements, and other global wars and threats of war.

In contrast, the Solidarity Center, the AFL-CIO’s primary channel for international activities, has continued to collaborate with US policies of regime change. The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center is historically 90 to 96% funded by the US government, and its policies are set in consultation with the White House rather than with representatives from its member unions. The Solidarity Center is one of the core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (US Chamber of Commerce), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The NED was created by the US Congress in 1983 in large part to “…do today [what] was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The Solidarity Center has played support roles in coups and coup attempts as well as invasions and occupations in Haiti, Venezuela, and Iraq, to name a few examples. In Haiti, the Solidarity Center withheld support for the largest union during the IRI orchestrated coup and instead funded a small labor organization that refused to oppose the coup. In Iraq, the Solidarity Center ignored unions and workers organizations protesting the US occupation in order to support union organizing that would avoid such direct challenges. 

In Venezuela, the Solidarity Center funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to plotters of the failed coup of 2002. Since then, the Solidarity Center has provided a black box worth millions in funding for activities in Venezuela. However, it has provided no details about how those funds are being used or to whom they are being distributed. 

The recent freeze in funding for the NED and the Solidarity Center by the Trump Administration is being treated as a crisis. It has resulted in lawsuits by both institutions to recover funding. However, orphaned by the White House, there is another way forward for the AFL-CIO and the Solidarity Center. The Tucson NWU resolution calls for the Solidarity Center to open its books on its activities and to wean itself off government funding. The recent experiences of unions declaring their solidarity with both Palestine and Venezuela have shown many the profound need for a new era of labor independence. 

Labor unionists in solidarity with Venezuela should study and learn from experiences regarding Palestine. Labor mobilizations against the genocide in Gaza represented a break not only with international US policies but, specifically, with the leadership of the AFL-CIO which has long supported Zionism and even to this day, acted to stifle solidarity with Palestine. In an article for Left Voice, Jason Koslowski informs us that, 

“By October 18, a little fewer than 2,000 were dead in Gaza. That’s when one of the AFL-CIO’s organs in Washington State — the Thurston-Lewis-Mason Central Labor Council, or TMLCLC — met and passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire. 

The TMLCLC’s resolution ‘opposes in principle any union involvement in the production or transportation of weapons destined for Israel.’ And it challenges the AFL-CIO leadership, too: 

‘[W]hile the TLMCLC agrees with the AFL-CIO’s statement calling for a ‘just and lasting peace,’ we would ask our parent federation to also publicly support an immediate ceasefire and equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis.

The AFL-CIO leadership caught wind of this dissent. That’s when it stepped in. 

Labor Activists Launch New Organization to Challenge AFL-CIO Foreign Policy

A representative of the AFL-CIO leaders contacted the labor council to declare the dissenting statement void. Under pressure, the Washington labor council deleted the statement from its Twitter account.”

Jeff Shurke is the author of the must-read book No Neutrals There: US Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine. Shurke, in an article for Jacobin, adds that, 

“…an AFL-CIO senior field representative informed the council’s board members that their resolution was null and void because it did not conform to the national federation’s official policy…. About a week later, AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler sent a memorandum to all local labor councils and state labor federations across the United States telling them that ‘the national AFL-CIO is the only body that can render an official public position or action on national or international issues.’ Without explicitly referencing the unfolding carnage in Gaza, she was all but telling the federation’s local and statewide bodies they were not allowed to stand in solidarity with Palestine.

Still, the AFL-CIO’s individual member unions — which, unlike central labor councils, operate as autonomous affiliates of the federation — were free to take their own positions. Beginning with the American Postal Workers Union and United Auto Workers (UAW), over the following weeks and months several of them formally joined the growing chorus of international voices demanding a ceasefire in Gaza… culminating in the establishment of a new union coalition dubbed the National Labor Network for Ceasefire.

The AFL-CIO itself eventually came out in favor of a “negotiated cease-fire” in early February 2024, after at least twenty-five thousand Palestinians had already been killed. Despite these positive developments, the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions at the national level still failed to answer the explicit Palestinian call to refrain from building or shipping weapons for Israel.”

In the case of the Tucson NWU’s resolution, rather than going through labor federations, the resolution has been sent to the national NWU for passage and forwarding to the AFL-CIO for consideration in the next convention. Other unions are debating similar resolutions. There also is discussion of bringing resolutions before labor counsels and federations despite the AFL-CIO’s admonishments. 

Right now, three kinds of resolutions have emerged from labor in response to the January 3rd attack on Venezuela. They are all good. 

•  The first kind is to condemn the attacks without further elaboration. That is positive, but by leaving out reference to the kidnapping of President Maduro and Cilia Flores, the resolutions sidestep the issue of regime change itself. 
•  The second kind adds a demand for the release of Maduro and Flores. This is better and implicitly breaks with the AFL-CIO’s and the Solidarity Center’s support for regime change. 
•  The Tucson NWU resolution is an example of the third approach. It takes worker-to-worker solidarity to its logical conclusion, calling for systemic change so that the AFL-CIO will never again support US coups and invasions but, instead, plot an independent course. That is the most meaningful kind of change, one that lasts beyond just the current moment and conflict. 

The opportunity to achieve that kind of change is here. Abandoned by the White House, pressured by its own rank and file, the time has come for the AFL-CIO to choose a new path. What will be its response?  

Notes:

For those seeking to delve further,  labor sociologist Kim Scipes wrote regarding the 2002 coup attempt in his 2004 article AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Déjà Vu All Over Again. Fellow labor sociologist Tim Gill provided details regarding Solidarity Center activities in Venezuela between 2006 and 2014. One may look to the Alliance for Global Justice website to find reports about funding for Venezuela since 2014. For  even more in-depth reading: Jeff Schuhrke’s book, Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor’s Global Anticommunist Crusade (Verso, 2024), which details AFL-CIO operations during the Cold War.  The other, a little older, is by Kim Scipes and talks about labor’s foreign policy from the late 1890s until 2007, but which includes a specific look at the AFL-CIO’s operations in Venezuela around the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez; it’s titled AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers:  Solidarity or Sabotage?(Bloomsbury Press, 2011).  Scipes has written extensively on this, and his writings can be found on-line for free here.

JPJ/OT

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

Every day, President Claudia Sheinbaum gives a morning presidential press conference and Mexico Solidarity Media posts English language summaries, translated by Mexico Solidarity’s Pedro Gellert Frank. Previous press conference summaries are available here.

Editor’s note: Mexico will not be sending oil to Cuba.

Baja California Reduces Violence with Results

Governor Marina del Pilar reported that intentional homicides in Baja California decreased more than 40% in November 2025. In addition, high-impact crimes have posted an accumulated reduction of close to 46%.

Cuba and National Dignity

President Claudia Sheinbaum stated Mexico’s position regarding U.S. tariffs on countries exporting oil to Cuba: support for sovereignty and self-determination, and warning of a possible humanitarian crisis. She clarified that Mexico sends less than 1% of its oil production as humanitarian aid for transportation and electric power generation.

Memory, Context, and Contrast

Sheinbaum noted that the goal is to avoid a humanitarian crisis, so Mexico will send an official statement to the U.S. government and instructed Minister of Foreign Relations Juan Ramón de la Fuente to communicate with the State Department, while also exploring alternative support options for the Cuban people.

The President recalled that in 2013, then president Enrique Peña Nieto and PRI leader forgave Cuba’s oil debt and she reiterated that today Mexico sends less than 1% of its oil production to Havana.

Migration with a Humanitarian Focus

Migration to the United States has decreased significantly, and a humanitarian policy has been developed from the southern to the northern border. Sheinbaum sent a message to Mexican migrants, emphasizing that they are heroes of the homeland, who not only contribute to their families in Mexico but also make California what it is today.

End to Tax Privileges

It was reported that Grupo Salinas made an initial payment of slightly over 10 million pesos (US$580,000) to the Tax Administration System (SAT), as part of a fiscal debt amounting to 32 billion pesos (US$1.85 billion), to be paid off over 18 months. This is the highest amount settled in a case of this nature. President Sheinbaum recalled that during López Obrador’s administration, constitutional prohibition of tax forgiveness was enacted, enabling the collection of record high back tax debts.

An Economy That Delivers

Mexico’s economic performance in 2025 was better than analysts predicted. Confidence is reflected in the strength of the peso against the dollar, at an exchange rate of 17.3 pesos. The President reminded her adversaries that the country’s reality outweighs any argument seeking to minimize these achievements.

Interoceanic Train: Investigation Underway

It was reported that the conductors of the Interoceanic Train that derailed did not have valid licenses as machinists; the incident was described as an administrative issue, not a direct cause of the accident. The President emphasized that it is up to the Federal Attorney General’s Office (FGR) to conduct expert analyses to clarify the causes of the accident and assign responsibilities; the report that was delivered is preliminary, and investigations continue.

---

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 30

  January 30, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on reducing violence in Baja California, not sending oil to Cuba, migration, Grupo Salinas tax debt, economic development, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Debt on the Installment Plan: Salinas Pliego Pays $10B MXN; $22B in Installments

  January 30, 2026

  The ultra-right winger and tax evader fumes, but begins to pay his debt piece-by-piece, but with less punitive measures than his Grupo Elektra receives.

• 

  News Briefs

  “Cooperation, Not Subordination?” No Oil from Mexico for Cuba, Sheinbaum Says Will Help “without putting Mexico at risk”

  January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

  The sad reality behind President Sheinbaum’s oft-repeated slogan on Mexico-US relations.

The post People’s Mañanera January 30 appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

This article originally appeared in the January 29, 2026 edition of Sin Embargo.

Mexico City. The Tax Administration Service (SAT) reported that Grupo Salinas, owned by businessman Ricardo Salinas Pliego, made an initial payment of 10,400,630,537 pesos, which was deposited into the Federal Treasury this Thursday. The remaining debt of 32,132,897,658 pesos will be paid in “small installments” over 18 payments.

This means that the owner of Elektra will have to settle the remaining 21,732,267,121 pesos of the debt in installments of 1,207,349,174.39 pesos.

“The Tax Administration Service (SAT) reports that, in accordance with the benefits established in the Federal Tax Code and in compliance with applicable court rulings, a business group will make a payment totaling 32,132,897,658 pesos. Of this amount, 10,400,630,537 pesos were already deposited into the Federal Treasury today, while the remaining amount will be covered through 18 payments,” the agency explained in a press release.

For its part, Grupo Salinas announced that it has decided to “turn the page” and conclude all the litigation it has been waging against the Mexican government.

“We have always said it, and we reiterate it today: Grupo Salinas and its founding president, Ricardo Benjamin Salinas Pliego, comply—and have always complied—with tax payments. In the last 20 years, our companies have paid more than 300 billion pesos in tax obligations. No one can deny that we are fulfilling our obligations to Mexico,” the business group stated in a press release.

Grupo Salinas Asserts it “no longer owes anything to the Government”

The business group stated that it has already fulfilled its obligations and owes nothing to the Government; however, there are still other lawsuits in which at least 23 billion pesos are being disputed.

“With this payment—which goes beyond the limits of the agreements originally reached in 2024—we will have covered absolutely everything the tax authorities demanded in this long legal battle. From now on, we owe nothing to the government, for any reason,” he stated, even though the administration of President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo denied the existence of such agreements.

“At Grupo Salinas we are convinced that, in order for things to change in our country, the first thing we must do is modify our way of thinking and call for a true cultural revolution,” the business group stated.

“To the Mexican people, we say: rest assured that Ricardo Benjamín Salinas Pliego and Grupo Salinas will always be allies of Mexico. We will never stop speaking the truth, seeking to restore to our nation and to every Mexican the prosperity that will reinstate us as a world-class example,” Grupo Salinas concluded.

This morning, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo explained that Grupo Salinas formally expressed its intention to pay its tax debt on January 22. Following that communication, the amount to be paid and the application of discounts provided for in current legislation were under review, and the payment was finalized this afternoon.

“That’s the one currently on the table. It should be resolved this week. It has to be resolved this week. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) ruled that the injunction is invalid and that the latest ruling by the collegiate courts is valid. In that latest ruling by the collegiate courts, for two of the companies in the Salinas Group, it was established that they can receive the benefits provided by the Tax Code. So the Tax Administration Service (SAT) presented the benefits they are entitled to, and they are evaluating whether they will be able to implement them,” Sheinbaum commented.

Total Play Asks Court to Withdraw Injunction

Total Play Telecomunicaciones, SAPI de CV withdrew the direct appeal in review 2526/2025, filed in April of last year against the payment of a tax credit exceeding 645 million pesos, reported Lenia Batres Guadarrama, Minister of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN).

“The announcement made today by the SAT, regarding an initial payment of more than 10 billion pesos, out of a total exceeding 32 billion, made by Grupo Salinas, represents a historic victory for the rule of law and a very encouraging message about equality in the fulfillment of obligations by Mexicans, regardless of their economic capacity,” the constitutional judge stated.

The debt was determined by the Tax Administration Service (SAT) on September 6, 2017 and has been challenged since then through various appeals.

One of these trials was resolved in March 2024 by the now-defunct Second Chamber of the SCJN, which ordered the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA) to annul a sentence and issue another one that deducted 621 million pesos.

“The Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA) reviewed its initial ruling, but without quantifying the corresponding deduction. Dissatisfied, the company filed a new appeal, which was denied, and requested a review before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). The company requested to withdraw from this case, which was assigned to me,” the Minister revealed.

Complaint Before IACHR Remains Pending

In the middle of this month, Salinas Pliego, president of Grupo Salinas, went to Washington to meet with Pedro Vaca, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the IACHR, before whom he filed a formal complaint against the Mexican State, due to “systematic harassment by the Government: fiscal, judicial and administrative persecution, coordinated to intimidate, wear down and silence those of us who think differently and raise our voices.”

“This sets a very dangerous precedent: the use of the state and organized crime as weapons to punish political opponents and restrict freedom of expression. In Mexico, they are trying to impose fear as a method of control,” he had stated.

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 30

  January 30, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on reducing violence in Baja California, not sending oil to Cuba, migration, Grupo Salinas tax debt, economic development, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Debt on the Installment Plan: Salinas Pliego Pays $10B MXN; $22B in Installments

  January 30, 2026

  The ultra-right winger and tax evader fumes, but begins to pay his debt piece-by-piece, but with less punitive measures than his Grupo Elektra receives.

• 

  News Briefs

  “Cooperation, Not Subordination?” No Oil from Mexico for Cuba, Sheinbaum Says Will Help “without putting Mexico at risk”

  January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

  The sad reality behind President Sheinbaum’s oft-repeated slogan on Mexico-US relations.

The post Debt on the Installment Plan: Salinas Pliego Pays $10B MXN; $22B in Installments appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

This article by Alonso Urrutia originally appeared in the January 30, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Tijuana, BC. In stating Mexico’s position regarding the warning from White House chief Donald Trump about imposing tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum called for avoiding a humanitarian crisis on the island that could affect hospitals, food, and basic services.

In this context, she reported that he had instructed Foreign Minister Juan Ramón de la Fuente to contact the State Department to ascertain the implications of Trump’s announcement. The goal is to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Cuba without jeopardizing Mexico.

“Mexico will explore various alternatives to provide humanitarian aid to the Cuban people, in accordance with international law.” He noted that the United States has been sending humanitarian aid, food, and other supplies; “we will find ways to maintain solidarity with the Cuban people without putting Mexico at risk.”

“We will find ways to maintain solidarity with the Cuban people without putting Mexico at risk.”

President Sheinbaum emphasized that the imposition of tariffs on oil shipments to Cuba was not a topic discussed in her phone conversation with Trump yesterday. “We didn’t touch on the subject. The issue of Cuba wasn’t discussed. This afternoon, a diplomatic appeal will be made to avoid a humanitarian crisis.”

She stressed that in this context Mexico unequivocally reaffirms the principle of respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of peoples.

Sheinbaum said that less than one percent of national production is being sent to Cuba to put the quantities into perspective. This is the oil used in power plants because, imagine if there were no electricity, it would affect hospitals and refrigerators. The goal is to avoid a humanitarian crisis.

He pointed out that preventing this social impact in Cuba is in the interest not only of the government but also of the Cuban people. That is what we want to convey to the United States government, but without risking further tariffs on Mexican exports.

Editor’s note: There is a protest in solidarity with Cuba this Sunday in Mexico City, starting noon at the old US Embassy at Reforma 305, located 15 minutes march from PEMEX headquarters.

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 30

  January 30, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on reducing violence in Baja California, not sending oil to Cuba, migration, Grupo Salinas tax debt, economic development, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Debt on the Installment Plan: Salinas Pliego Pays $10B MXN; $22B in Installments

  January 30, 2026

  The ultra-right winger and tax evader fumes, but begins to pay his debt piece-by-piece, but with less punitive measures than his Grupo Elektra receives.

• 

  News Briefs

  “Cooperation, Not Subordination?” No Oil from Mexico for Cuba, Sheinbaum Says Will Help “without putting Mexico at risk”

  January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

  The sad reality behind President Sheinbaum’s oft-repeated slogan on Mexico-US relations.

The post “Cooperation, Not Subordination?” No Oil from Mexico for Cuba, Sheinbaum Says Will Help “without putting Mexico at risk” appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

Iran’s Army has issued a stark warning that any new act of aggression against Iran will be met with an immediate and decisive response, stressing that the experience of the June war has fundamentally reshaped Iran’s military posture and rules of engagement.

Speaking on the televised program “To the Horizon of Palestine,” Army spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia said Iran’s Armed Forces are now operating under clear instructions that leave no room for delay if the enemy repeats a “miscalculation.”

“If the enemy commits another foolish move and once again falls into miscalculation, we will respond instantly and in real time,” Akraminia said.

“We learned in the 12-day war that hesitation and giving the enemy time is absolutely unacceptable. The response must be immediate, and this has been formally communicated as a directive to the Armed Forces.”

The 12-day war in June involved direct confrontation with the Israeli regime and US involvement. According to the army spokesman, the central failure of Washington and Tel Aviv in that war was a fundamental misreading of Iran’s capabilities, cohesion, and national will.

He said the enemy’s strategic design was based on the assumption that Iran was weak in the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Storm and that a rapid, lightning-style military strike could trigger chaos, internal unrest, and ultimately the collapse and fragmentation of the Islamic Republic.

“This was the core American miscalculation,” Akraminia said. “They believed that with a swift military operation they could create disorder, push the system into crisis, and move toward regime overthrow and even the disintegration of Iran. But the world witnessed something completely different.”

Operation Al-Aqsa Storm was a sudden, large-scale, and coordinated operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance inside Israeli settlements in the southern occupied territories on October 7, 2023, which shattered Israeli security assumptions.

According to Akraminia, Iran responded immediately to the Israeli military assault in June, neutralizing the enemy’s objectives and transforming what was meant to be a shock operation into a strategic failure.

“Not only did chaos and unrest fail to materialize, but national unity and social cohesion grew stronger than before,” he said. “The Americans received their answer in this war.”

Akraminia devoted a significant portion of his remarks to the United States under President Donald Trump, describing Washington’s approach as unpredictable and rooted in outdated coercive doctrines.

“When it comes to Trump’s America, it is not possible to make precise predictions,” he said. “We are dealing with a narcissistic and delusional individual who constantly changes his positions.”

Army spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia

The army spokesman said Trump sought Iran’s submission during the 12-day war but quickly moved to halt the aggression after encountering Iran’s deterrent power.

“Trump wanted Iran to surrender, but after several days he worked to stop the war,” Akraminia said. “In this war, the Armed Forces demonstrated their deterrent capability, and we forced the Zionist regime into a ceasefire.”

He warned against any new illusion in Washington that a limited or symbolic strike could be launched and quickly concluded.

“This is not a scenario where the US president orders an operation and two hours later tweets that it’s over,” he said. “That kind of thinking is pure fantasy. Such an attack would ignite a fire that would engulf the entire West Asia region.”

Addressing the possibility of a future US or Israeli attack, Akraminia said Iran has already finalized operational plans and issued the necessary orders.

“For a potential enemy attack, the required plans have been prepared and directives have been issued,” he said. “For different enemy scenarios, we will have appropriate and proportionate responses.”

He emphasized that even the smallest strike against Iran would not go unanswered.

“They may attack us militarily, but they are again suffering from miscalculation,” he said. “If we are hit even slightly, we will respond, and that response may not be desirable for the United States.”

Akraminia made clear that the geographical scope of any future conflict would not be limited.

“The scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region,” he said. “From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.”

In one of his most explicit warnings, the army spokesman said US military bases across the region are fully within Iran’s strike envelope.

“We can target American bases with semi-heavy weapons, drones, and missiles,” he said, adding that US aircraft carriers and naval assets are not immune.

“Warships are important tools in modern warfare, but it is not the case that all American military power is concentrated in these fleets,” Akraminia said. “These aircraft carriers are vulnerable to the missile and hypersonic missile capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Akraminia said the 12-day war significantly increased Iran’s military readiness across all four branches of the army.

The Iran Insurgency

“After the 12-day war, we are at a much higher level of preparedness,” he said. “This war provided us with valuable experience, and we are using those lessons.”

He noted that damaged air defense systems were rapidly repaired or replaced and that new systems have been introduced to further strengthen Iran’s defensive network. He also pointed to new measures taken in the air force, navy, ground forces, and air defense units.

“We were not completely surprised in the war,” he said. “Our intelligence assessment was that Israel would attack, though we did not expect a terrorist-style attack on such a scale.”

The army spokesman highlighted the role of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, describing his actions during the war as decisive and inspiring.

“The Leader played his command role excellently during the 12-day war through the immediate appointment of commanders and direct messaging to senior military leaders,” Akraminia said.

“Beyond the Armed Forces, he also exercised broad leadership and management, shaping the narrative of the war with a powerful and epic message.”

He also emphasized the morale and spiritual strength of Iran’s military personnel.

“One aspect that has been discussed less is the spirit, motivation, and will among our personnel,” he said. “This motivation has been strengthened. Our colleagues in the Army and the IRGC stood against the Zionist regime until their last breath during the 12-day war.”

Akraminia said that if war is imposed again, Iranian forces are ready to avenge the martyrs of the June war.

“The Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a people’s army, formed from the heart of the nation,” he said. “Its duty is to defend the people and the country.”

Akraminia stressed that strengthening deterrence is not a choice but a necessity in today’s world.

“One of the key lessons of the 12-day war is that we must enhance our deterrence and preserve national cohesion and self-confidence,” he said.

“We must also stand firm in other domains of warfare, including cognitive and psychological warfare, where the enemy seeks to strike us.”

He added that when diplomacy reaches its limits, the responsibility shifts to soldiers and, increasingly, to those engaged in “soft war.”

“In international relations, when the diplomat’s work ends, the soldier’s work begins,” Akraminia said. “Alongside diplomats and soldiers, soft-war officers also play a decisive role.”

(PressTV)

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

This article by María del Pilar Martínez originally appeared in the January 29, 2026 edition of El Economista.

Women’s collectives and civil society organizations presented the report Connected to Change, a study conducted while the Mexican Social Security Institute ( IMSS ) pilot program for digital platform workers was in effect. The report, released now that the labor reform has taken effect with some adjustments, highlights that, while the reform is historic, its implementation has not closed pre-existing gender gaps.

In a press conference, the specialists urged the correction of “critical knots” in public policy to prevent the new rules from reproducing the inequalities they seek to combat.

The diagnosis, built from workshops and testimonies, identifies four main barriers that disproportionately impact female workers, most of whom are mothers and the economic breadwinners of their households.

The first finding is the high exposure to violence and insecurity: “almost 7 out of 10 women have suffered harassment, physical and verbal violence and even death,” said Verónica Álvarez, a member of the Lady Drivers collective in Guadalajara.

Photo: Unión Nacional de Trabajadores por Aplicación

Added to this is the so-called Exclusion Factor, a discount that forces drivers and delivery workers to generate income far above the net target to access the minimum contribution floor to the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS). “This results not only in indirect exclusion in terms of full access to social security, but also, for example, in lower contributions once they do gain access to social security,” explained Néstor Génis, one of the analysts of the report.

“The lack of transparency in algorithmic management and the 30-day inactivity rules, which can mean the loss of the employment relationship during pregnancy or postpartum, are other factors that generate “indirect discrimination,” said Marianela Fernández of OXFAM .

Faced with these challenges, the organizations and spokespeople are proposing an immediate course of action, demanding that platform companies implement real protocols against violence, with effective sanctions and the guarantee that “reporting will not bring us algorithmic punishments,” in the words of Frida, a delivery worker from Hermandad Delivery.

They requested that federal authorities adjust or eliminate the exclusion factor thresholds and ensure that labor inspections incorporate a gender perspective into the digital realm to audit algorithmic management. They also asked the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) to develop clear guidelines on health insurance, publish gender-disaggregated data, and adapt childcare services to the non-traditional work schedules—evenings, nights, and weekends—of women in the sector.

Valentina Zendejas, Mexico’s representative at the Avina Foundation , emphasized that the work of the collectives, technical partners in the report’s development, is fundamental to ensuring that “implementation does not reproduce the inequalities it seeks to correct.” The final proposal is clear: to work with institutions and companies to ensure a dignified and safe future for women in the digital sector.

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 30

  January 30, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on reducing violence in Baja California, not sending oil to Cuba, migration, Grupo Salinas tax debt, economic development, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Debt on the Installment Plan: Salinas Pliego Pays $10B MXN; $22B in Installments

  January 30, 2026

  The ultra-right winger and tax evader fumes, but begins to pay his debt piece-by-piece, but with less punitive measures than his Grupo Elektra receives.

• 

  News Briefs

  “Cooperation, Not Subordination?” No Oil from Mexico for Cuba, Sheinbaum Says Will Help “without putting Mexico at risk”

  January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

  The sad reality behind President Sheinbaum’s oft-repeated slogan on Mexico-US relations.

The post Mexico’s Gig Worker Reform Risks Institutionalizing Exclusion of Women Workers appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

By Ben Norton – Jan 25, 2o26

Self-declared “peacemaker” Donald Trump has bombed 10 countries, more than any other US leader. Now he plans to raise the military budget to $1.5 trillion — nearly the rest of the world’s defense spending combined.

Donald Trump claims to be a so-called “peace president”, but he has bombed more countries than any other US leader.

After proudly renaming the Pentagon from the Department of Defense to the Department of War, Trump now plans to raise the US military budget from $1 trillion to a staggering $1.5 trillion.

This means that, if Trump succeeds, the United States will soon spend more on its military than all of the other countries in the world combined, excluding China.

This is deeply hypocritical, because in his January 2025 inauguration speech, as he started his second term as US president, Trump declared that he would be a “peacemaker”.

Similarly, in the victory speech that Trump gave after he won the November 2024 presidential election, he claimed, falsely, that during his first term, “we had no wars”.

“I’m not going to start a war; I’m going to stop wars”, Trump promised.

He lied. In the first year of his second term, the Trump administration bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

When his first and second terms are combined, Trump has bombed 10 nations (the aforementioned seven, plus Afghanistan, Libya, and Pakistan).

This means Trump has bombed more countries than all other presidents in US history.

Moreover, Trump is threatening to attack at least four more nations: Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland. He has vowed to colonize Greenland and forcibly turn it into US territory.

In a publication on his website Truth Social on January 20, 2026, Trump posted a photoshopped image of himself sitting in the White House next to a map showing Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela all annexed by the US empire.

Bipartisan US wars kill millions of people
Trump is certainly not unique when it comes to waging wars; every US president in modern history has intervened abroad and overseen war crimes.

George W. Bush bombed five countries, and invaded Iraq in an illegal war of aggression.

Barack Obama won the so-called Nobel “Peace” Prize, before his administration went on to bomb seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

Trump bombed the same seven nations attacked by Obama, adding three more: Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

In fact, the wars waged by the US in the two decades after September 11, 2001 had a death toll of at least 4.5 million people, in a conservative estimate by researchers at the elite Brown University.

They also found that 38 million people were displaced due to these US-fueled wars. This was the largest refugee crisis since World War Two.

These imperial wars have been bipartisan. All modern US presidents have been complicit.

But what is especially hypocritical about Trump is that his administration constantly spreads propaganda claiming that the man who has bombed more countries than any other US leader is “the peace president”.

Trump launched more airstrikes in 6 months than Biden did in 4 years
Just in 2025, in the first 11 months of his second term, Trump carried out more than 500 bombings of countries around the world, according to data from the monitoring group Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED).

“Trump launched more airstrikes on foreign nations in the first six months of his second term than Biden did in all four years he was in office”, CBC reported, citing ACLED figures.

Joe Biden himself also oversaw extreme war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Biden administration strongly supported the Israeli regime, giving it tens of billions of dollars of military aid and shielding it from any legal consequences by repeatedly vetoing resolutions at the UN Security Council, as US-backed Israeli forces committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Trump has continued doing the same. In September, the Trump administration pressured Congress to approve the sale of $6.4 billion more in military equipment to help Israel further colonize Palestinian land.

Trump bombed civilian sites in Venezuela
Moreover, when Trump attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its internationally recognized President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, he also killed more than 100 people, including civilians.

In the illegal invasion of Venezuelan sovereign territory, the US military bombed civilian sites in addition to military targets.

Among the civilian areas hit by the US military was a medical warehouse that stored supplies for Venezuelan dialysis patients. Thousands of civilians could now die, because they lost access to this life-saving treatment.

The US military similarly destroyed an important scientific research center in Venezuela.

Trump’s Secretary of War Pete Hegseth proudly declared that the US attack on Venezuela was aimed at China and Russia.

“We’re re-establishing deterrence that’s so absolute and so unquestioned that our enemies will not dare to test us”, he stated.

US Committed a War Crime: Protester Speaks Out in US Senate

Trump wants $1.5 trillion US military budget
Just a few days after Trump bombed Venezuela, he announced that he plans to increase the US military budget from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion by 2027.

Fortune magazine reported that “a $1.5 trillion U.S. military budget would exceed the combined military expenditures of the next 35 highest-spending countries. And starting from the bottom up, a $1.5 trillion U.S. military budget would exceed the military expenditures of every other nation combined except for China”.

For context, in 2024, the entire world’s military expenditure was $2.7 trillion.

As of that year, the United States alone accounted for 37% of global military spending, according to data collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Nearly half, 47%, of US federal government discretionary spending was dedicated to the Pentagon — which was previously known as the Department of Defense, but which self-declared “peacemaker” Trump renamed the Department of War.

In 2024, the US spent more on its military than the next nine largest military spenders in the world combined.

The combined defense expenditure of China, Russia, Germany, India, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, and Japan was $984 billion, compared to $997 billion in the US (and most of these top military spenders are US allies).

China’s defense spending in 2024 was $314 billion, or less than one-third of that of the US, according to SIPRI.

China has not fought a war since 1979, while the United States bombed seven countries just in 2025.

Trump’s $1.5 trillion US military budget will increase federal debt by $5.8 trillion
When he announced his intention to raise the military budget to $1.5 trillion, Trump claimed he will, “at the same time, pay down Debt”.

This is false.

A report by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that Trump boosting annual military expenditure to $1.5 trillion will add $5.8 trillion to US federal debt over the next decade.

Trump claimed that the tariff revenue that the US government makes will supposedly cover this increase in military spending. This is not true.

Tariff revenue is estimated to be around $300 billion per year, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That is significantly smaller than the additional cost of increasing the military budget to $1.5 trillion.

This assumption that tariff revenue will stay high, at roughly $300 billion annually throughout the next decade, likewise suggests that Trump’s assertion that his tariffs will reindustrialize the US is false.

If Trump’s levies truly aimed to accomplish this, it would be expected that tariff revenue would fall over time, as they would reduce imports and instead encourage domestic consumption of goods.

Nevertheless, Trump’s insistence that his tariffs could help pay off US federal debt demonstrate that he knows they will not re-industrialize the US.

Trump cuts taxes on the rich while raising taxes on the poor
In reality, Trump’s tariffs are a regressive tax on Americans. They represent a shift of the tax burden off of rich Americans onto poorer ones.

Trump constantly claims that other countries will supposedly pay for his tariffs. This is not true. It is US importers and consumers that pay the tariffs.

This tax on consumption of imported goods is extremely regressive. The biggest burden by far is felt by lower-income Americans, who spend much more of their paycheck on basic imported goods.

At least 55% of the cost of Trump’s tariffs have been paid by US consumers, Goldman Sachs estimated in October 2025.

Meanwhile, Trump has been cutting taxes on the richest Americans. The policies included in his “One Big Beautiful Bill” will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest people in the country.

Trump’s policies will result in 69% of tax cuts going to the richest 20% of Americans.

While a mere 1% of tax cuts will benefit the poorest 20% of Americans, 94% of Trump’s tax cuts will go to the richest 60%.

69% of the tax cuts in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” go to the richest 20% of Americans. Just 6% go to the poorest 40%.

In fact, due to Trump’s tariffs, the bottom 95% of Americans will actually see an effective tax increase.

The poorer a person is, the higher the percentage of their income will go to paying taxes to the Trump administration, while only the richest 5% of Americans will actually see their taxes fall.

This is because, as Trump reduced progressive income taxation in one area, he increased regressive taxation in another area, in the form of tariffs.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated that Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” and his tax cuts on the rich will cause US federal debt to balloon by $5.5 trillion by 2034. This is in addition to the $5.8 trillion federal debt increase that will result from his $1.5 trillion military budget.

This is all profoundly hypocritical, because Trump oversaw the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which he appointed the world’s richest billionaire oligarch, top US government contractor Elon Musk, to lead.

Trump and Musk claimed DOGE would root out government “waste, fraud, and abuse”.

In reality, the Trump administration gutted social spending and the parts of the state that actually help working families, while not reducing spending overall.

Trump’s plans to increase US federal debt by trillions — by cutting taxes on the rich and raising the military budget to $1.5 trillion to wage war around the world — come at the same time when he is eliminating $186 billion of funding for SNAP, the food program that helps poor and working-class Americans feed their families.

In other words, Trump is slashing government support for the poorest people in the country, while providing tax relief for the richest and massively increasing the Pentagon budget, which will further enrich corporate shareholders in the military-industrial complex.

Donald Trump, the billionaire self-declared “peacemaker” who now holds the record for bombing more countries that any other US president, is demonstrating to the world that all US wars are indeed a form of class war.

(Geopolitical Economy)

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

The Venezuelan National Assembly has unanimously approved the partial reform of the Organic Law of Hydrocarbons.

The discussion, held on Thursday, January 29, during the plenary session of the parliament, was chaired by the president of the National Assembly, Deputy Jorge Rodríguez. Participating in the debate were oil industry workers, PDVSA President Héctor Obregón, Minister of Economy and Finance Anabel Pereira, Sectoral Vice President of Economy Calixto Ortega, PDVSA Vice President of Exploration and Production Eduardo Pinto, PDVSA Vice President of Gas Yaniel Viloria, President of the Bank of Venezuela and Acting President of Pequiven Román Maniglia, as well as other officials linked to the hydrocarbons industry and the economy sector.

Deputy Orlando Camacho, president of the Standing Committee on Energy and Petroleum, highlighted that the reform was previously submitted for public consultation with the participation of industry workers throughout the country, in order to learn about their experiences, and that more than 120 written proposals were received from various locations. He added that this reform “will change the country’s economy and bring about great transformations.”

He explained that the proposals were systematized and that the 35 articles of the law were submitted for consideration and approved by the deputies of the Standing Committee on Energy and Petroleum. “Today, a reform is being brought up for a second discussion that will change the economy and bring about great transformations for us, for our children, for our grandchildren, and for the future of Venezuela.”

Several articles were modified, taking into consideration the proposals of some parliamentarians regarding the incorporation of terms, including that of Deputy Antonio Ecarri, of the opposition Alianza Lápiz party. He described the session as historic, saying that “the just content of this law will change the next 50 years for better or for worse.”

The president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, responded that a good transitional provision would be “that the Venezuelan opposition will never again call for or paralyze the oil industry, never again ask for blockades, sanctions, or thefts such as that of Citgo,” a statement that was met with applause from the members of the parliament. He added that “only one sector has turned off the lights on the oil industry,” referring to far-right opposition.

Some articles regulating oil operations
Article 1 of the law was approved by consensus as follows: “The purpose of this Law is to regulate all matters relating to the exploration, extraction, collection, transportation, storage, processing, upgrading, refining, industrialization, marketing, conservation, and comprehensive use of hydrocarbons, under the principles of energy sovereignty, public ownership of deposits, progressive maximization of profits, legal certainty, contractual transparency, accountability, environmental protection, and adaptation to the energy transition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

Article 8, which was also incorporated, establishes that: “In contracts for the execution of activities regulated by this law, the parties may agree that any doubts or disputes of any nature arising from the execution of such activities, which cannot be resolved amicably by the parties, may be decided by the competent courts of the Republic or through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation and arbitration. The Ministry with Competence in Hydrocarbons, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic, shall establish the general guidelines for establishing the dispute resolution clauses referred to in this article. The clauses agreed upon in accordance with these guidelines shall not require the opinion or authorization provided for in the decree with the rank, value, and force of Organic Law of the Attorney General’s Office and the Commercial Arbitration Law.”

Article 25 reads as follows: “The Ministry with Competence in Hydrocarbons may grant operating companies, referred to in paragraphs one and two of Article 23, the right to carry out primary activities. It may also transfer to them ownership or other rights over movable or immovable property belonging to the private domain of the Republic, required for the efficient exercise of such activities. The Ministry with Competence in Hydrocarbons may revoke these rights when the operators fail to comply with their substantial obligations, thereby preventing the achievement of the purpose for which such rights were transferred. Operating companies wholly owned by the Republic or their subsidiaries may assign, in whole or in part, by contract to the companies referred to in paragraph three of Article 23 of this law, the rights that have been granted to them in accordance with the provisions of this article, with the prior authorization of the Ministry with Competence in Hydrocarbons.”

Article 34 states the following: “The establishment of joint ventures and the conditions governing the execution of primary activities shall be authorized by the President of the Republic and notified to the National Assembly for the purposes of exercising parliamentary control. The National Government, through the Ministry with Competence in Hydrocarbons, shall submit a report containing the relevant circumstances of said establishment and the agreed conditions, including the special advantages in favor of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Joint ventures shall be governed by this law and, in each particular case, by the decree authorizing their creation, their articles of incorporation, and, supplementarily, by the Commercial Code and other applicable laws. Joint ventures shall be excluded from the scope of application of the decree with the rank, value, and force of law on public procurement and its regulations, and shall implement transparent procurement mechanisms in accordance with the principles of honesty, efficiency, equality, planning, publicity, and simplification.”

Article 35 states that: “The establishment of joint ventures shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. Maximum duration of 25 years, extendable for a period to be agreed upon by the parties, not exceeding 15 years. This extension must be requested by the operating company to the Ministry with Competence in Hydrocarbons after half of the period for which the right to carry out the activities was granted has elapsed and before 5 years of its expiration.
2. Determination of the location, orientation, extent, and shape of the area where the activities are to be carried out and other specifications established by the regulations.
3. Right of first refusal of the majority shareholder for the acquisition of shares in the event of assignment, disposal, or transfer by the private shareholder of the joint venture.
4. The reversion or transfer to the Republic of the land and permanent works, including the facilities, accessories, and equipment that form an integral part thereof, as well as those acquired, generated, processed, and interpreted, and any other assets obtained for the purpose of carrying out such activities, regardless of their nature or title of acquisition. Upon the expiry of the rights granted for any reason, the operating companies undertake to maintain the assets mentioned in this section in good condition so that they may be transferred to the Republic, free of encumbrances and without compensation, in order to ensure the possibility of continuing the activities, if applicable, or their cessation with the least economic and environmental damage.”

Delcy Rodríguez Rejects US ‘Orders’ as Venezuela Advances Hydrocarbons Law Reform

“Only good things will come after the suffering”
After the Partial Reform of the Hydrocarbons Law was unanimously approved, the president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, emphasized that this legal instrument has been enacted “for history, for the future, for our children” and stressed that “only good things will come after the suffering.”

Rodríguez explained that the reform was the result of “an arduous process of consultations throughout the country, with more than 120 proposals received from across the national territory, with an in-depth debate” that took place in the Standing Committee on Energy and Petroleum. He congratulated the committee “for the strength and tenacity, patience, and depth with which they handled such complex issues.”

He also congratulated “the Venezuelan patriotic bloc for the strength with which it is carrying out these transformations. I congratulate the opposition for the constructive nature of its proposals. I congratulate the oil sector workers who will carry out the most important elements of this reform of the law, and I congratulate the people of Venezuela. Only good things will come after the suffering. Only good things for everyone, which we must build together, irrespective of how we think, for the prosperity of our republic.”

He then invited PDVSA President Héctor Obregón and the board of directors of the company to come up to the podium to receive the approved bill.

Communication to Acting President Delcy Rodríguez
The president of the parliament also read out in the chamber the communication that would be sent to the acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez: “Dear President, please accept my warmest regards. I am pleased to address you on the occasion of sending you the Partial Reform of the Organic Law on Hydrocarbons, approved in a plenary session on Thursday, January 29 of this year, in accordance with Article 213 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, reiterating my feelings of high esteem and consideration. Sincerely, Deputy Jorge Rodríguez Gómez, President of the National Assembly.”

(Últimas Noticias) by Aura Torrealba

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SH

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

This article by Jared Laureles and Jessica Xantomila originally appeared in the January 30, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Faced with the crisis in 15 maquiladoras on Mexico’s northern border, following the bankruptcy of First Brands Group, the National Independent Union of Workers of Industries and Services Movement 20/32 seeks to influence the legal process taking place in the United States against the company for alleged financial irregularities that impact more than 5,000 workers.

Susana Prieto Terrazas, legal representative of this union holding the only active collective agreement in one of the nine subsidiaries of the US company, requested to appear at the next hearing before the Bankruptcy Court based in Houston, Texas, to explain the problems of the Mexican workers.

In yesterday’s session, First Brands argued that it needed access to a $144 million fund to ensure the continuity of its operations and the payment of salaries; otherwise, the corporation warned that it would close and 13,000 jobs would be lost in its subsidiaries, the labor lawyer indicated.

The judge postponed the decision on the loan application for two weeks to gather more information about the company’s financial situation, she added.

The U.S. Department of Justice reported yesterday that Patrick James, founder and former CEO of First Brands Group, and his brother were arrested in Ohio on charges of defrauding the company, which led to its bankruptcy in September 2025.

“At the time of its bankruptcy, First Brands – a company that reported approximately $5 billion in annual net sales worldwide – declared only $12 million in cash in its corporate bank accounts and more than $9 billion in liabilities.

As a result of the defendants’ fraudulent schemes, First Brands’ lenders and creditors now face losses in the millions,” the company stated on its official website.

Former employees of the Tridonex factory, some with up to 25 years of service, maintain a vigil outside the plant in Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Photo: Julia Le Duc

In an interview, Prieto Terrazas pointed out that at Tridonex-Cardone, in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and at Subensambles Internacionales there are workers with 30 years of seniority, who were told by the legal advisors of the US company that “there was no money to pay salaries or continue operations.”

In response, he announced that a lawsuit would be filed to “seize assets as a precautionary measure” and guarantee workers’ compensation. He also asked them to maintain a presence at any First Brands-related plant.

Separately, Serafín Garza, leader of the Autonomous Federation of Independent Unions in Mexico, indicated that there are potential buyers for the Subensambles and JPP plants. He emphasized that a strike was called at these facilities as a precautionary measure to ensure workers receive their severance pay.

Meanwhile, he considered that in the four BPI Manufacturing plants in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua –where it has proof of representation– there is no interest in acquiring them, since “they are not profitable”.

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 30

  January 30, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on reducing violence in Baja California, not sending oil to Cuba, migration, Grupo Salinas tax debt, economic development, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Debt on the Installment Plan: Salinas Pliego Pays $10B MXN; $22B in Installments

  January 30, 2026

  The ultra-right winger and tax evader fumes, but begins to pay his debt piece-by-piece, but with less punitive measures than his Grupo Elektra receives.

• 

  News Briefs

  “Cooperation, Not Subordination?” No Oil from Mexico for Cuba, Sheinbaum Says Will Help “without putting Mexico at risk”

  January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

  The sad reality behind President Sheinbaum’s oft-repeated slogan on Mexico-US relations.

The post Mexican Union Fights in US After First Brands Bankruptcy & Factory Closures appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

By Misión Verdad  –  Jan 28, 2026

Over the past few weeks, the Venezuelan exchange rate system, both official and unofficial, has been subject to significant volatility. The exchange rate between the bolívar and the US dollar (USD) has fluctuated considerably, distorting price systems and fueling inflation in Venezuela.

In summary, the official rate reported by the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV), which represents the weighted average of bank exchange rates, showed a steady upward trend in an effort to narrow the gap with the parallel (black market) dollar.

On December 1, 2025, the exchange rate opened at 247.30 bolívars (Bs) per USD. By December 31, 2025, the rate broke the 300 barrier and then reached 301.37 Bs/USD on January 2, 2026.

During the first few weeks of the year, the pace of adjustment intensified. On January 13, it stood at 330.37 Bs/USD. As of January 27, the official exchange rate exceeded 358 bolívars, representing an increase of over 20% in just the first month of the year.

As for unofficial rates, the Binance P2P (peer-to-peer) market served as the primary gauge of foreign exchange in the unofficial sphere, exhibiting volatility and prices significantly higher than the official rate. By early December 2025, the average was already over 360 Bs/USD. By mid-December, the average on digital platforms was around 436.40 Bs/USD.

In January 2026, the gap peaked, reaching extreme distortion by mid-month. On January 13, while the BCV rate was 330, sale prices on Binance peaked at up to 608 Bs/USD. In some cases, prices reached 700, 800, and even 900 Bs/USD.

However, after reaching historic highs, the market experienced an adjustment towards the end of that period. By January 24, the Binance P2P marker was trading at approximately 470.52 Bs/USD. In mid-January, the highest exchange rate gaps between the BCV reference dollar and the P2P market were observed, fluctuating on an intraday basis between 80%, 110%, and even 200%. After the adjustment, the gap narrowed to 20%.

The component factors
While the BCV rate has maintained a steady upward trend, the P2P market referred to by Binance for the USD showed extreme volatility. It should be noted that the value of the latter affects the price of cash currencies in informal or “street” transactions.

The composition of prices on unofficial markers was clearly influenced by political variables. During the month of November, the Trump administration deployed direct coercive actions and physical blockades of Venezuela’s maritime oil activity, a situation that led to the theft of oil tankers, which in turn resulted in the interruption of currency sales mechanisms by the BCV through the exchange intervention mechanism.

Throughout December and until mid-January, BCV conducted no foreign exchange interventions, which increased the “currency drought,” uncertainty, and, consequently, speculation.

When the US invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro took place on January 3, the variables of uncertainty, exchange rate fluctuations, and the absence of foreign currency supply increased, creating the ideal environment for speculators. Traditional price setting in the P2P system favored disproportionate upward trends that were, in many cases, unmanageable.

This reflects the distortions emanating from the P2P ecosystem: a small conglomerate of suppliers and buyers, which does not represent the majority of daily currency transactions carried out in the country, where transaction amounts are not comparable to those of the regular currency supply in foreign exchange interventions.

The distortions fueled by speculation spread beyond that system and had collateral effects on the real economy. Many businesses adjusted their prices, which led to increased inflation.

However, Venezuelan politics has now been overshadowed by an “oil détente” between the governments of the US and Venezuela, suggesting a process of easing illegal coercive sanctions. In this regard, the Venezuelan government announced the release of foreign currency that came from the sale of Venezuelan oil to the United States, a mechanism executed via the BCV and then through national banks, which are the suppliers of foreign currency for the benefit of prioritized economic activities such as health, food, and production.

This element led to an adjustment in the unofficial exchange rate system, which had an impact on various markers and led to a downward differential of up to 20% between the BCV dollar and Binance’s P2P.

Once again, the persistence of significant structural vulnerability in the Venezuelan economy is evident. This vulnerability stems from the link between oil activity, which is susceptible to blockades and turbulence, and variable monetary conditions.

Reuters’ ‘Market Story’ and the American Pole: PetroChina, Venezuelan Oil, and the Siege That Calls Itself Trade

Short-term and medium-term questions
The stability of the exchange rate system depends on many factors, such as currency flows, the release of foreign currency by non-priority sectors, and price formation in the official and unofficial spheres that mitigates exchange rate gaps.

One of the major difficulties in setting prices in the unofficial sphere is the serious problem of persistent speculative practices involving the USD, both in its physical form and in digital versions. Agents on various unofficial platforms have turned foreign currency into a commodity in itself, benefiting from speculation and cartelizing prices, always on the rise, taking advantage of the limitations of the official exchange mechanism.

Another complex element is the psychosocial and economic pattern in the market and the informal retail sale of foreign currency. This is the tendency to seek the highest rate on any platform in order to transfer those reference values to the real market, either for the purchase and sale of banknotes or for referencing prices for certain goods and services in the economy.

Any scenario of stabilization and reduction of exchange rate gaps—and their psychosocial and economic consequences—will necessarily be possible within the framework of expanding the supply of foreign currency in the country.

However, the future is not necessarily uncertain. In fact, there is a strong possibility that the emergence of a general license issued by Washington for oil activities in Venezuela would allow for the regularization of energy flows, which will increase access to foreign currency.

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez proposed to the National Assembly a partial reform of the Organic Law of Hydrocarbons, which is shaping up to be an important mechanism for channeling new investments into Venezuela, which would be in foreign currency.

Rodríguez has also indicated that some $1.4 billion is expected to be invested in oil activities in the country this year, a figure that could vary considerably with the emergence of new oil exploration agreements, which may increase the flow of foreign currency into the exchange system at the expense of direct investment in capital goods and other goods and services.

There are other measures that are pending in terms of national monetary policy. One of them is the authorization of interbank transactions and payments between national entities in dollars, which could reduce the incidence of the use of stablecoin platforms such as Binance.

The operation of currency exchange offices remains another pending element, a postponement that is due to the physical availability of foreign currency in banknotes, which exist in the economy but are kept as savings or as means of payment, in amounts that are insufficient for a sustained process of currency buying and selling.

The exchange rate context in 2026 could resemble that of 2024, when the gap between the official and unofficial reference dollars reached minimum levels, of 5%-9% difference, a range that fostered a system of imports, supply of goods, prices of goods and services, and manageable containment of devaluation of the bolívar.

(Misión Verdad)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SH

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

Oil workers in Venezuela, together with the people, have rallied in support of amendments to a law promoted by the government that will reform the country’s oil sector.

---

From Presstv via This RSS Feed.

This article by Alejandro Alegría originally appeared in the January 30, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Neither the Ministry of Energy (Sener) nor Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) issued comments regarding the tariff measures that the United States will take against countries that sell oil to Cuba

After US President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs on goods from nations that supply crude oil to the island, La Jornada requested a statement from both the company and the Ministry of Energy (Sener); however, the Ministry of Economy’s communications department indicated that there would be no comment, as the matter was not within its purview.

This comes just days after Bloomberg and Reuters reported that Mexico had suspended fuel shipments to Cuba, which are used for electricity generation. Granma reported energy shortages, despite the island having around 49 photovoltaic plants, which are insufficient to meet demand.

In recent days, President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo stated that the shipments to the island are for humanitarian reasons, which is not a new claim. She added that on other occasions, shipments are also made under existing contracts.

According to reports submitted by Pemex to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), since July 2023, its subsidiary Gasolinas Bienestar has been purchasing energy products from the company for sale to Cuba. Between January and September 2025, Gasolinas Bienestar exported 17,200 barrels per day of crude oil and 2,000 barrels per day of petroleum products, for a total of 7.9 billion pesos, equivalent to 400 million dollars.

Information released by the company indicates that these sales represented 3.3 percent of total crude oil exports and 1.8 percent of total petroleum product exports, respectively.

• 

  News Briefs

  PEMEX & Mexico’s Energy Ministry Remain Silent on All Crude Oil Shipments to Cuba

  January 30, 2026January 30, 2026

  PEMEX canceled a scheduled oil shipment this month.

• 

  News Briefs

  Trump Signs Executive Order: Punitive Measures Against Any Country “that directly or indirectly provides oil” to Cuba

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  The US President wants to destroy Cuba and starve its population and he wants Mexico to help. Or else.

• 

  Soberanía

  Can I Borrow You For A Minute? UK MP Zarah Sultana on Trans-Atlantic Anti-imperialism

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  While oppression may take different forms in different places, the same forces are behind attacks on democracy in Latin America and assaults on civil liberties in the global north.

The post PEMEX & Mexico’s Energy Ministry Remain Silent on All Crude Oil Shipments to Cuba appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President, Delcy Rodríguez, welcomed the “lifting of restrictions on the country’s commercial airspace”, which had been in place since last November, following talks with the US government.

Speaking at a rally on Thursday, Rodríguez said she received a phone call from US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to address the issue as part of a “working agenda” between the two countries that includes the resumption of diplomatic relations.

“Let all the airlines that need to come, come. Let all the investors that need to come, come”, Rodríguez said. She assumed office following the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, amid the January 3 US attacks.

Earlier in the day, Trump ordered the reopening of “all Venezuelan airspace” to commercial flights, stating that US citizens would be able to travel safely and that Venezuelans wishing to return—either permanently or temporarily—would also be able to do so.

Trump ordered Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and other officials, including military commanders, to ensure the reopening was “immediate.”

Trump went on to describe the exchange with his Venezuelan counterpart as “highly positive,” emphasizing that “relations have been very solid and very good.” He further sought to reassure international travelers by stressing that they would be safe while in Venezuelan territory.

Following the announcements, the US Federal Aviation Administration confirmed that it had removed four Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) in the Caribbean region, including one related to Venezuela. “They were issued as a precautionary measure and are no longer necessary”, the agency argued.

Likewise on Thursday, American Airlines announced its intention to resume daily direct flights between the United States and Venezuela, becoming the first US airline to take such a step.

The company, which began operations in Venezuela in 1987, stated that the resumption of the route would be subject to approval by both US and Venezuelan authorities, as well as the corresponding security assessments.

American Airlines Chief Commercial Officer Nat Pieper said the company was eager to offer its customers the opportunity to reunite with family members and to generate new business and trade opportunities with the United States.

Direct flights between the two countries were suspended in 2019, the same year diplomatic relations between Washington and Caracas were severed after the US recognized Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president.

Last November, Trump declared that Venezuela’s airspace should be considered “completely closed.” A flurry of NOTAM warnings led international airlines to suspend their connections to the Caribbean country. Caracas withdrew licenses from several companies, including TAP, Iberia and Turkish Airlines.

On January 13, Panama’s Copa Airlines announced the resumption of flights to and from Caracas.

Embassy reopening in the works

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday during a Senate hearing that he expects the United States to reestablish a diplomatic presence in Venezuela in the near future. “We have a team there evaluating it, and I think we’ll be able to open a diplomatic presence soon,” he said.

Rubio argued that such a presence would allow Washington to “have real-time information and interact not only with government officials but also with members of civil society and the opposition.”

Laura Dogu has so far been appointed to lead the diplomatic mission from the Venezuela Affairs Unit in Bogotá, Colombia. According to CNN, the CIA is looking to establish a “foothold” in the South American country that may preced the formal arrival of US diplomats.

For her part, Rodríguez has defended her administration’s diplomatic engagement with the United States, while also urging Venezuelan political sectors to resolve their differences and internal conflicts without “orders from Washington.”

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The post Caracas and Washington Agree to ‘Reopen’ Venezuelan Airspace, American Airlines to Resume Flights appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.

---

From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

Caracas (OrinocoTribune.com)—Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil has publicly thanked the numerous progressive movements and international organizations from across the African continent that have condemned the US empire’s aggression against the Caribbean country.

In a social media post this Thursday, January 29, the top diplomat stated that the actions of the US represent a flagrant violation of national self-determination, and manifest as unacceptable aggression against the stability of a sovereign country.

Minister Gil’s post was in response to a joint statement released Wednesday, primarily by Pan-African liberation social movements, demanding the freedom of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Deputy Cilia Flores.

Gil remarked on the importance of international solidarity committed to the anti-colonial struggle and the calls for the release of the presidential couple, and honored their dedication of both of their lives to defending the sovereignty and self-determination of their people.

Speak, Speak, Whatever You Must Speak: Asian Solidarity With Venezuela

Below, you can read the full text of the joint statement and its signatories:

We, the undersigned organizations and movements committed to social justice, democracy, and international law, grounded in anti-imperialist struggle and peoples’ sovereignty, unite in unequivocal condemnation of the recent kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro, the constitutionally recognized president of Venezuela, by armed forces acting on behalf of the US government. This act constitutes an expression of imperial violence, representing a flagrant violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, the fundamental right to self-determination, and the norms of civilized international conduct. It reflects a long-standing pattern of US interventionism aimed at ‘disciplining’ states that resist imperial control over resources, political systems, and development paths.

The abduction of President Maduro is not merely an attack on an individual, but a direct assault on popular sovereignty and the collective democratic agency of the Venezuelan working masses and the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter. It represents a dangerous escalation in the use of unilateral coercive force, and abduction as instruments of imperial power, and sets a perilous precedent that threatens the sovereignty of all nations. Such actions erode global trust and expose a contempt for the diplomatic and legal frameworks designed to maintain peace and order between states. Guided by reflection and inspiration from the principled statements and positions of progressive organizations and sovereign states across the world, we call upon the conscience of the international community to:

1. Publicly denounce US imperialist aggression against Venezuela in all its forms, including military attacks on civilians, coercion, and regime-change operations. Demand accountability for violations of international law.
2. Organize pickets and deliver letters of protest at US embassies and consulates worldwide, demanding an immediate end to aggression against Venezuela.
3. Demand the immediate and unconditional release of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and reject any act of state-sponsored kidnapping, detention, or removal of Venezuela’s elected leadership.
4. Categorically reject all forms of foreign military intervention, intelligence operations, occupation, and regime change efforts in Venezuela.
5. Uphold and reaffirm Venezuela’s inalienable right to political independence, self-governance, and territorial integrity, free from foreign intervention, occupation, or imposed authority.
6. Insist that all disputes be resolved through peaceful negotiation and multilateral diplomacy. Reject coercion, subversion, sanctions, and the use of force as tools of international policy.
7. Affirm that true democracy means allowing the Venezuelan people to determine their political and economic future without foreign destabilization or interference.
8. Petition governments and parliaments to publicly condemn US actions and to sever all military, intelligence, and security cooperation with the aggressor.
9. Sustain coordinated social media campaigns using hashtags such as #HandsOffVenezuela and #FreeMaduro to break the media blockade and spread accurate information.
10. Hold popular assemblies, political education workshops, forums, and documentary screenings in communities, universities, and workplaces to expose imperialist strategies aimed at seizing resources and undermining sovereignty.
11. Stand in active solidarity with the Venezuelan people and all nations resisting imperial domination, affirming that an attack on one sovereign people is an attack on all.

We express our unwavering solidarity with the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in this moment of crisis. History teaches us that imperialism and foreign intervention breed only instability, conflict, and human suffering.

Grounded in Pan-Africanism, anti-colonial struggle, and South–South solidarity, as progressive forces, we reject this archaic doctrine of might-makes-right. We recommit ourselves to building a just world order where sovereignty is respected, international law is upheld, and the self-determination of all peoples is guaranteed.

Together, we affirm, ‘From the continent and beyond, our rallying cry is one: We progressive voices of the world, unite!’ Together, we shall end imperialism!

Hands Off Venezuela!

Signatories:

• • Africa Collective, France
  • African Youth Movement for the Promotion of the African Union Gabon (MJAPUA), Gabon
  • All African People’s Revolutionary Party, Ghana
  • ANJUD Association, Niger
  • APP/Burkindi, Burkina Faso
  • APP-diaspora/Benin, Benin
  • Association for the Development of Angolan and Foreign Young People (ADJAE), Angola
  • BISO PEOPLE Citizens’ Movement, Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
  • Botswana National Front, Botswana
  • Coalition of the Togolese Diaspora for Change and Democracy (CODITOGO), Togo
  • Communist Party Marxist Kenya (CPM-K), Kenya
  • Convention People’s Party (CPP), Ghana
  • Cultural Committee for Democracy in Benin (CCDB), Benin
  • FRAPP (Front for a Popular and Pan-African Anti-Imperialist Revolution), Senegal
  • Friends of the Congo, United States of America
  • General Confederation of Workers of Côte d’Ivoire (CGT -CI), Côte d’Ivoire
  • Ghana Eye Report, Ghana
  • Harbist Movement, Djibouti
  • Headquarters of the Revolution, Mali
  • Humanists Malawi, Malawi
  • International Committee of Black Peoples (CIPN), France
  • International Decolonization Front, France
  • International Front for Decolonization (FID), France
  • International Movement for Reparations (MIR), France
  • Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), France
  • Mabedja Pan-Africanists, Comoros
  • National Coordination of Citizen Monitoring Associations, Burkina Faso
  • National Federation of Education (FNE), MoroccoPan-African Convergence, Cameroon
  • Pan-African League – Umoja, France
  • Pan-African Unitary Dynamic (DUP), France
  • Pan-African Progressive Front
  • Pan-African Youth of the Central African Republic, Central African Republic
  • Party of Progress and Socialism (PPS), Morocco
  • People’s National Convention, Ghana
  • Planet of Young Pan-Africanists of Burkina Faso (PJP-BF), Burkina Faso
  • Plate MdaiJasho – Agro Hip Hop Movement, Tanzania
  • Popular Union for the Liberation of Guadeloupe (UPLG), Guadeloupe (France)
  • Process of Black Communities (PCN), Colombia
  • Progressive Movement of African Peoples (MPA), Guinea
  • Socialist Movement of Ghana
  • Socialist Party of Zambia, Zambia
  • State55 Afrika, Cameroon
  • The Maroon Circle, France
  • The Pan-Africans Movement, Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
  • Tunisia Forward Movement, Tunisia
  • United Actions for Democracy (UAD), Nigeria
  • United Textile Employees Union (UNITE), Lesotho
  • Union of Populations of Cameroon – National Manifesto for the Establishment of Democracy (UPC-MANIDEM), Cameroon
  • We Can Movement, Mauritania

Special for Orinoco Tribune by staff

OT/JRE/AU

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

Caracas (OrinocoTribune.com)—The acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, and the president of the US empire, Donald Trump, have agreed to reopen airspace over the South American country immediately, according to an announcement made by Venezuelan authorities.

Following a telephone conversation between Acting President Rodríguez and Trump this Thursday, January 29, it was confirmed that the illegal US blockade of Venezuelan airspace—imposed in November of last year—would cease immediately. The decision also ends flight restrictions imposed by the US regime in 2019 that halted direct travel between the two countries.

During a Cabinet meeting at the White House, the US ruler announced that he expects the measure to be effective by the end of the day. This now allows both US and Venezuelan citizens to travel between the nations with full security guarantees. The move ensures that the illegal US flight restriction over Maiquetía’s Flight Information Region (FIR) will be lifted, alongside the ban on direct flights.

The US air blockade, initiated against Venezuela on November 29, 2025, is part of a series of aggressions and attacks that culminated in a number of bombings on January 3 and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. More than 100 people were killed during the US strikes, and more than 120 were seriously wounded.

“I informed her that we would open the airspace,” declared Trump to the press, claiming the improvement of diplomatic ties with Venezuela. “Very soon, citizens will be able to travel to Venezuela safely, and some Venezuelans who want to return will be able to do so.”

Analysts have noted that Venezuela has been open to normal diplomatic relations with the US entity since the era of President Hugo Chávez. However, they explain that the US has been responsible for the deterioration of relations through countless regime-change operations, illegal sanctions, and the blockade of the country.

The US ruler described the relationship with the current leadership of Venezuela as “very solid,” seemingly thanking her for her willingness to reach an agreement that will normalize commercial air traffic in the region.

Chavismo, the political force behind Presidents Chávez and Maduro, remains in tight control of Venezuela—as mandated by the Venezuelan constitution—backed by massive popular support that was mobilized following the unprecedented and bloody US strikes on January 3.

With the announcement, Trump was forced to acknowledge that his government was responsible for the illegal unilateral blockade of Venezuelan airspace. “This announcement marks a milestone in the bilateral agenda, prioritizing connectivity and citizen mobility under a framework of mutual cooperation,” a Venezuelan Presidential Press news release reads.

Recently, Acting President Rodríguez emphasized that, within a framework of respect and diplomacy, various bilateral issues will be addressed to guarantee peace and social well-being for both peoples.

American Airlines first in line
Once the announcement was made public, American Airlines announced plans to reinstate direct, nonstop flights between the US entity and Venezuela, becoming the first US carrier to do so. The airline explained it is currently completing the necessary procedures to receive flight permits and resume operations, following nearly seven years of being excluded from the Venezuelan market by order of the US government.

“American Airlines is proud to be the first airline to announce plans to restore direct service between the United States and Venezuela,” reads its press release. “The airline is in close contact with federal authorities and is ready to begin flights to Venezuela, pending government approval and security assessments.”

2019 US flight connection ban
The blocking of connections between Venezuela and the US was originally decided on May 15, 2019, during Trump’s first term, as part of the failed Juan Guaidó regime-change operation. After six years and eight months, Trump decided to lift the same restrictions he imposed, citing good relations with current Venezuelan authorities, Últimas Noticias reported.

The US ruler also praised the Venezuelan dignitary and claimed that their relationship is very good. “I want to thank the leadership of Venezuela. We get along very well with them. Relations have been very strong, very good,” he added, despite the new threats against Venezuela’s leadership made on Wednesday by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a US Congress hearing.

To demonstrate concrete progress in bilateral relations, Trump reported that US corporations “are now going to Venezuela, exploring and choosing their locations,” to undertake lucrative business ventures. “They will bring back enormous wealth for Venezuela and for the US. And the oil companies will be doing Venezuela a great favor; in fact, they will earn more money than ever before. And that is a good thing,” he claimed.

The announcement aligns with statements from Acting President Rodríguez, who has reiterated that Venezuela is open to good relations with all countries under principles of respect and goodwill.

Venezuela’s Acting President Rodríguez Assumes Military Command, Launches National Cyber Defense Office

National Center for Defense and Cybersecurity
Also on Thursday, Venezuelan Science and Technology Minister Gabriela Jiménez led a high-level strategic meeting with authorities from the Military Scientific Council. The meeting was held in order to create the National Center for Defense and Cyber Security, as had been requested by Acting President Rodríguez the day before.

In a press release, the Science and Technology Ministry reported that, in compliance with instructions from Rodríguez, the sovereign capabilities and operational readiness of the Bolivarian National Armed Force (FANB) were evaluated.

Jiménez emphasized that the National System of Science, Technology, and Innovation firmly assumes the comprehensive cyberdefense of the nation during this historical juncture. During the meeting, military commanders reaffirmed their commitment to guaranteeing the stability of the people and the security of technological infrastructure, through innovation and adaptation. Jiménez explained that science represents the “weapon for peace and the definitive independence” of the country.

The new institution integrates scientific knowledge with national defense, in order to safeguard the state’s digital platforms against potential external threats. Its objective is to enhance the FANB’s operational readiness by utilizing the technical contributions of the National Science, Technology, and Innovation System to create a robust digital shield based on national development and strategic intelligence.

Special for Orinoco Tribune by staff

OT/JRE/AU

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

On Wednesday, the US Secretary of State denied that the US was waging war against Venezuela. In the same appearance, he warned that he would oversee Venezuela’s “transition” and threatened to use force if “other methods fail.”

Marco Rubio appeared before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. “There is no war against Venezuela, and we did not occupy a country,” stated Rubio. “There are no US troops on the ground.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul, who describes himself as “the most anti-war person in the Senate,” highlighted the contradiction: “If a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?”

“Of course it would be an act of war,” Paul continued. “I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president.”

Rubio dodged the question. He argued that the January 3 attack on a sovereign nation was “law enforcement,” lasted only four-and-a-half hours, and was carried out to capture someone whom the United States “does not recognize as head of state,” with a US $50 million reward on his head.

That day, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were abducted by US troops following a military assault that left at least 100 people dead and more than 100 wounded, according to Minister Diosdado Cabello. Both President Maduro and Flores were transported to New York, USA, against their will, where they pleaded not guilty to charges of narcoterrorism.

Paul concluded his remarks by stating: “One-way arguments that don’t rebound, that you can’t apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments.”

Rubio’s contradiction did not end there. In his prepared remarks to the committee, he warned that the administration would use force “to ensure maximum cooperation if other methods fail.”

Two incompatible projects
While Rubio spoke of overseeing a supposed “transition from a criminal state to a responsible partner,” the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, outlined the country’s legislative priorities from the Federal Palace. One of these priorities remains strengthening People’s Power as a fundamental axis of the state.

These are two projects that cannot coexist. One, the US proposal—imperialist—envisions external control. The other—Bolivarian—deepens citizen participation in national decisions. The difference lies in principles: who determines the country’s destiny?

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez drew that line when she responded to statements by the US Treasury Secretary, which she described as “irrelevant and offensive”

“The people of Venezuela do not accept orders from any external force,” stated Delcy Rodríguez unequivocally. ” The people of Venezuela have a government, and this government obeys the people,” she declared before energy sector officials, legislators, and national and international business leaders.

Funds unlocked for social investment
Venezuela responds with action. Rodríguez announced the release of state funds that will be reinvested in social protection. “We are releasing funds to invest in essential equipment for hospitals, the electricity sector, and the gas industry,” she stated.

The government created two sovereign wealth funds: one earmarked for social needs and the other for public services and infrastructure. These resources had been frozen for years due to unilateral sanctions. Now, they will be channeled toward hospitals, the electricity grid, and the national gas industry.

Venezuela reaffirmed its willingness to engage in dialogue based on mutual respect and non-interference. Rodríguez insisted that any agreement must recognize the self-determination of the Venezuelan people and respect their democratic institutions.

Sovereign wealth funds allow the government to address national priorities without subordinating its domestic policy to external conditions. Caracas unlocks resources, invests in health and public services, strengthens people’s power, and reaffirms the fact that decisions about the country’s future are made by its own people.

Delcy Rodríguez Rejects US ‘Orders’ as Venezuela Advances Hydrocarbons Law Reform

(Telesur)

Translated by Orinoco Tribune

SL

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

The same day after a 40 minute phone call between himself and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order declaring a national emergency “and establishing a process to impose tariffs on goods from countries that sell or otherwise provide oil to Cuba, protecting U.S. national security and foreign policy from the Cuban regime’s malign actions and policies.”

• The Order imposes a new tariff system that allows the United States to impose additional tariffs on imports from any country that directly or indirectly provides oil to Cuba.
• The Order authorizes the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce to take all necessary actions, including issuing rules and guidance, to implement the tariff system and related measures.
• The President may modify the Order if Cuba or affected countries take significant steps to address the threat or align with U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

This week, a Bloomberg report said that a scheduled PEMEX shipment of oil to Cuba from Mexico was cancelled, leading to multiple questions for Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum during her morning press conferences. President Sheinbaum specified that there were two paths for oil to arrive in Cuba from Mexico: via PEMEX, and as humanitarian aid, and said that humanitarian aid to Cuba, which could include oil, was not cancelled but would not specify when the next shipment would be sent. A reporter asked, “Will the shipment of oil as humanitarian aid continue?,” and the President responded, “We have to determine that based on the request.”

Mexicans pay homage on the 173rd Anniversary of the birth of José Martí in Guadalupe, Zacatecas.

The peoples of Mexico and Cuba share a long revolutionary bond, from the post-revolutionary period in Mexico when Cuban communist and revolutionary Julio Antonio Mella was assassinated in Mexico City by Cuban dictator Gerardo Machado; to the Granma expedition of 1956, which departed from Veracruz for Cuba with Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Che Guevara, Camilo Cienfuegos, and 78 others onboard; including President Sheinbaum’s own grandfather and uncle, Chone and Solomon Sheinbaum, who were members of the Communist Party of Cuba in the 1920s, before being deported to Mexico; and to the many solidarity events which have taken place this week across Mexico, in honour of José Martí’s birthday.

• 

  News Briefs

  Trump Signs Executive Order: Punitive Measures Against Any Country “that directly or indirectly provides oil” to Cuba

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  The US President wants to destroy Cuba and starve its population and he wants Mexico to help. Or else.

• 

  Soberanía

  Can I Borrow You For A Minute? UK MP Zarah Sultana on Trans-Atlantic Anti-imperialism

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  While oppression may take different forms in different places, the same forces are behind attacks on democracy in Latin America and assaults on civil liberties in the global north.

• 

  News Briefs

  Cuban Embassy Denounces US Blockade Tightening & Persecution of Those Who Help

  January 29, 2026

  Johana Tablada asserted that the Cuban people will follow the example of their national hero in defending the island’s right to choose its own destiny.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order: Punitive Measures Against Any Country “that directly or indirectly provides oil” to Cuba appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

What does international solidarity mean in practice? In this interview, recorded at Progressive International’s “Nuestra América” conference in Bogotá, Kurt Hackbarth speaks with Zarah Sultana, UK MP and co-founder of the incipient left-wing party Your Party. International connections, Sultana argues, must grow from the reality of our interconnected lives: while oppression may take different forms in different places, the same forces are behind attacks on democracy in Latin America and assaults on civil liberties in the global north. What is at stake, she reminds us, is the fundamental right to self-determination in the face of imperialism. Calling out the UK for acting as a “poodle” of US foreign policy, Sultana closes with a call for all voices to join the fight against fascism — from political parties to trade unions to social movements.

---

• 

  News Briefs

  Trump Signs Executive Order: Punitive Measures Against Any Country “that directly or indirectly provides oil” to Cuba

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  The US President wants to destroy Cuba and starve its population and he wants Mexico to help. Or else.

• 

  Soberanía

  Can I Borrow You For A Minute? UK MP Zarah Sultana on Trans-Atlantic Anti-imperialism

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  While oppression may take different forms in different places, the same forces are behind attacks on democracy in Latin America and assaults on civil liberties in the global north.

• 

  News Briefs

  Cuban Embassy Denounces US Blockade Tightening & Persecution of Those Who Help

  January 29, 2026

  Johana Tablada asserted that the Cuban people will follow the example of their national hero in defending the island’s right to choose its own destiny.

The post Can I Borrow You For A Minute? UK MP Zarah Sultana on Trans-Atlantic Anti-imperialism appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

By Justin Podur – Jan 28, 2026

A review of the available evidence

Iran, the Sanctioned Economy
Before a military analysis of the demonstrations of January 1-15, let’s look at Iran’s economic problem and the origin of the December 28 demonstrations.

Iran faces a unique set of problems. Surrounded by US military bases, facing both the US and Israel that have stated that they want not solely its surrender but its destruction and partition, its scientists and military personnel facing assassination wherever they go in the world, its economy under one of the most severe sanctions regimes in the world with its oil and ships periodically stolen on the high seas. All the same, the people still need jobs and incomes and development.

Some Iran watchers fantasize that if Iran could convince Israel and the US of its peaceful intentions, that the West would lift the sanctions and Iran could have a normal economic life. Iranian American Virginia Tech professor Djavad Salehi-Isfahani expressed such a fantasy in a January 9 article, “The Economic Roots of Iran’s Protests”. The economist concludes: “Iran’s government cannot credibly promise to stabilize exchange rates or tame inflation any time soon. The one move that could offer relatively quick economic relief – and to which the government could credibly commit – is a cessation of hostilities with Israel and the US.” Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy of normalizing with genocidal Israel as a means of sanctions relief, the absurdity of thinking that a unilateral cessation of hostilities from the Iranian side would be met with anything but increased violence from the US and Israel should be apparent to anyone that has been awake for any amount of time in the past several decades (never mind since 2023). Salehi-Isfahani’s prescriptions – predictably for a mainstream US-based economist – are for “free-market” remedies: basically, letting the Iranian currency float. Like all neoliberal cures, this remedy would be fatal for the patient (which could be why the US prescribes it to its enemies). Netherlands-based economist Kayhan Valadbaygi argues that Iran has built a “welfare-warfare state”, but the problem is that it has done so “without a firm economic basis to maintain it.”

Many Iranian policy makers were educated in these US schools of economics and believe that if they can play by Western rules they can get sanctions lifted and enter a free market utopia. But as Nahid Poresa told Max Blumenthal of the Grayzone in an interview on January 22, a more realistic approach would be to accept the sanctions as a permanent fact of life instead of having false hope that they would be lifted, and commit fully to a “look east” economic policy with Russian and Chinese (also sanctioned) partners. To, instead of accepting the de facto dollarization of the Iranian economy, use the local currency to run the national economy and limit foreign exchange through capital controls. Iran already does many of these things: its multiple-exchange rate system is an evolution based on the sanctions situation. Industries have built a certain resilience in spite of – or perhaps because of – the sanctions regime which effectively shielded local industries from exposure to competitors. There is a barter trade with neighbours. There are subsidies for gasoline and bread. The Pezeshkian government’s challenge to these latter policies and the threat to cut some of these subsidies and to unify the exchange rate system – these are what led to the collapse of the currency and to the December 28th protests. Western-based economists looking at Iran argue the exact opposite: that the neoliberal reforms are the one good thing the Iranian government wants to do, and that the heterodox adaptations that have enabled people to survive the sanctions are deviations from orthodoxy that need to be removed. Like Israel and the US, these economists are trying to kill Iran.

Why would Iranian economic and political leaders go along with this? Financialization is the fashion and Iran’s banking system is growing more complex with a greater role for private banking and therefore opportunities for truly magical profits, as one Tasnim article from November argues (I read an auto-translation). A harsher assessment is provided by sociologist Yousef Abazari, who laments the naivete of Iran’s economic policy makers who don’t understand that economics isn’t science, that there are very different schools of thought in the field, and that the economics “experts” at the helm of Iran’s economy have the same fatal prescriptions that the Americans want – austerity, misery and oligarchy. Abazari asks sardonically, what’s the point of resisting America if Iran implements the same economic policies on its people? Iran has been attacked by many Western weapons, but among the worst weapons seems to be giving a Western economics education to many of Iran’s leaders.

Still, the most orthodox free-marketeers will turn to things like rationing, planning, barter, and capital controls as a matter of survival. Iran’s policies of solidarity with others in similar situations like Venezuela expose people to a diversity of methods for dealing with economic warfare. What most free-market oriented Iranian officials and Western Iran watchers agree on is that neoliberal austerity is the right direction, which is why it doesn’t come up as a subject of debate. It is the wrong direction.

Iran also needs a tech stack like China has to replace Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. so that people aren’t using US tech companies obsessed with their overthrow and assassination to communicate with one another. Iran has several allies that aren’t bent on its destruction and is full of educated scientists and engineers who make things work and can take the reins away from the Chicago boys. Iran could get out of this one yet.

The economic and university protests
On December 28, facing the end of the multiple exchange-rate system that immediately tanked the value of the local currency, economically motivated protests began against the loss of their purchasing power and a proposed austerity budget. There were more protests the following day and on December 30th, including at universities, where students also protested for their right to protest.

The Iranian president and other officials stated that they would change some of the proposed policies and look at better solutions to the economic problems.

That is the end of the economics discussion and of the economics protest. Beginning January 1, the nature of the protests changed.

January 1-15: A review of NYT and WaPo coverage
I reviewed the main news articles in the New York Times and the Washington Poston the protests from December 30 through to January 15. I was looking in particular at events described and the sourcing of the claims. NYT and WaPo are outlets that are against the Iranian government and in favor of US and Israeli policy towards Iran (regime change, destruction of the state, partition, etc.) I also reviewed all of the videos and comments posted by the pro-Iran aggregator @AryJeay on twitter, “Fotros Resistance” on telegram. I took screenshots of each important video and saved important text from the articles as a slight hedge against the impermanence of the internet.

There is little different between NYT and WaPo coverage in terms of politics, depth, or sourcing. None seem to have reporters present in Iran and bylines are from Beirut, Istanbul, or Jerusalem. Sourcing is often to “according to videos posted on social media”, which is a cheap way of covering world events. Both NYT and WaPo also quoted (if somewhat mockingly) Iranian news outlets such as Tasnim and Fars. There are also interviews with pseudonymous people who tell their ordinary stories of what they’ve seen, with last names not provided. Finally, for the all-important casualty numbers, US- and German-based human rights organizations are cited. The most frequently cited is HRANA, the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Alan MacLeod of MintPress news reported that the Fairfax, Virginia based organization received $900,000 in funding from the United States’s National Endowment for Democracy in 2024 alone. Also frequently cited is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran (ABCHRI), also funded by NED, and the Center for Human Rights in Iran, also funded by NED.

On January 1, the NYT cited “footage circulating on social media” to describe protesters pulling a gate open in Fasa, chanting “death to the dictator” in Hamedan, closing their stores in Tehran chanting “don’t be afraid, we’re all together”. NYT supplemented their “videos showed” with an interview with “Yaser”, who saw protesting shopkeepers first hand at a bazaar in Tehran. On January 2, NYT stated that a 21-year old Basij militia member had been killed – the first casualty, on the government side, which the NYT sourced to Iranian government news agency Tasnim. On January 3, the NYT led with Trump’s Truth Social post: “If Iran 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.” NYT also cited Israel’s minister of innovation, Gila Gamliel, who posted to X, “Israel is with you, and we support you in every way possible.”

On January 4-5, coverage was dominated by the US raid on Venezuela and kidnapping of its president and first lady.

On January 6, the NYT reported that things had calmed down, and was reproducing Iranian news outlets describing the organization and violence of the protests of the previous day, mentioning “videos on social media” showing protesters firing assault rifles into the air while chanting “Death to Khamenei”. “But in Tehran, with the exception of the bazaar downtown, the university campus, and a few working-class neighborhoods, the city seemed normal, residents said in interviews and videos on social media suggested. Ski resorts north of Tehran were packed with affluent day trippers.”

But Reza Pahlavi made a call and an op-ed on January 6, calling people to overthrow the regime and calling on the US to intervene.

The peak days of the campaign were January 8 and 9, covered in the NYT on the 9th and 10th. On the 9th, the NYT was estimating 27-36 had been killed up to the 8th; also, citing NetBlocks, NYT noted that the internet in Iran had been shut down on the 8th. Notably, NYT cites no organization, no manifesto, no political demands, no slogans, no placards. Here is their description of the protests on the January 8th:

In telephone interviews, more than a dozen witnesses said that they saw large crowds forming on Thursday night in neighborhoods across Tehran, the capital, and in cities around Iran, including Mashhad, Bushehr, Shiraz and Isfahan. They said the crowds were diverse, with men and women, young and old. The people interviewed inside Iran asked that their names not be published out of fear of retribution.

One resident of Tehran said that the crowds were chanting, ‘’Death to Khamenei,’‘ referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and ‘’freedom, freedom.’‘ The chants could be heard from several blocks away in the affluent neighborhood of Shahrak Gharb in Tehran, which had until now sat out the protests.

Videos filmed on Thursday night showed government buildings on fire across the country, including in Tehran, as protests grew. While the protests were mostly peaceful early in the evening, violence broke out later in the night in Tehran, with demonstrators setting fire to cars, buildings and items in the street. A video verified by The New York Times shows fires in the streets of Kaj Square in the capital, with thousands of protesters flooding the area.

In Karaj, a suburb west of Tehran, a video verified by The Times showed protesters fleeing after gunshots were fired, though it is unclear from the videos whether it was security forces firing.

On January 10, citing HRANA and others, NYT said deaths were in the “dozens” (up to January 9th).

After January 11, NYT depends increasingly on “Videos shared” as their primary source. On the 11th, notably, the highest estimate printed for numbers killed was 65 protesters. The Washington Post ran an op-ed by Reza Pahlavi stating that he was ready for a transition.

As the protests died down, the casualty numbers leapt. On January 12, WaPo cited a HRANA figure of 490 protesters killed. They backed this up with “A senior Western official who was briefed on the matter”, who “said hundreds were killed”. The official “spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media” (!) On January 14, WaPo came back with a HRANA figure of 2,000 killed, an anonymous source speaking from the suburbs calling it a “full-on war” but who couldn’t see properly because she “didn’t have my glasses or contact lenses”. On January 15, WaPo came back citing Bari Weiss’s CBS in an editorial by Marc Thiessen, “There is no US downside to striking the Iranian regime”, with new casualty figures of 12,000 and potentially as many as 20,000. Diminutive German-Iranian lobbyist for Reza Pahlavi, Amir Parasta, gave a figure of 30,304. Parasta also tweeted offering Iran’s assets to Turkey, and of course praising Reza Pahlavi.

January 1-15: A review of the videos
In order to fill out their pseudonymous interviews, NYT and WaPo freely cited Iranian news agencies. In the same period, pseudonymous pro-Iran social media account AryJeay / Fotros Resistance aggregated a comprehensive set of videos from Iranian news, cellphones, and CCTV footage. One aggregator, IntelonIran, estimated a peak of 11,000 demonstrators on the streets on the night of January 8, before the internet was shut down. According to this source, 11,000 was the highest number of people on the streets. The economic protests were long ended and the violent riots had been ongoing for a week, so it is safe to assume all 11,000 of these were people working for regime change.

The five ways of attack
Rather than repeat a chronology, I will compile the five different kinds of attacks that appear in these videos. I made a rough map of the locations of the attacks as well.

1. The Jump. A crowd jumps a single bystander or security, beats him and/or burns his vehicle

January 1, location unspecified, rioters throw rocks at the home and burn the car.

Hamedan, January 1, rioters jump a security guard and beat him down (CCTV).

January 2, location unspecified. Shop owner, Ali Azizi, killed by 6 rioters.

January 2, Qom. Rioter sets a shop on fire.

January 4. Hamedan. Rioters jump a police officer and beat him.

January 5, Isfahan. 2 rioters jump a police officer and beat him with an iron bar. Cellphone footage.

January 7. Colonel Shahin Dehghan, Malard County near Tehran, stabbed to death.

January 7, Kermahshah. Rioters kick a man on the ground with his pants pulled down: this is a standard procedure, pull their pants down and then beat and kick them on the ground.

January 8, location unspecified, rioters jump a man and kick and beat him.

January 8, Ahvaz City. CCTV footage of a group of rioters overpowering an elderly man, beating him, and burning his car.

January 8, Noorabad County, Lorestan. Cellphone footage of rioters destroying a car.

January 9, Gohardasht, Karaj. Group of rioters jump a man and beat him. Cellphone footage.

January 9, Tehran. CCTV footage of armed rioters attacking a police officer.

2. The attack on first responders. Rioters attack ambulances, fire, buses or emergency response vehicles

January 2, Tehran. Rioters attack an ambulance.

Between January 6-9, rioters burned several Red Crescent centers throughout Iran.

January 9, Mashhad. An Iranian firefighter burned to death.

January 9, Mobarakeh, Isfahan. Photo of a torched fire truck.

January 9: authorities report 15 buses burned on January 8-9, 600 signs and railings, and the Metro stormed in Mashhad.

January 9: authorities report 50 fire trucks nationwide – a fire station in Mashhad, 15 vehicle in Isfahan, 5 in Ahvaz, a fire station in Shiraz, and the Red Crescent Building in Izeh, all attacked over Jan 8-9.

January 10, rioters attack and burn a bus in Isfahan. CCTV footage.

January 10. Rioters burn several buses in Mashhad.

3. Gun battles. A street gun battle between rioters and law enforcement

Kudasht, December 31. 13 officers injured, 20 armed rioters arrested, 1 police officer burned, one Basiji (22 years old Amir Hesam Khodayari-Fard) killed.

January 3, location unspecified. Cell phone footage of a rioter using a flamethrower against a police motorcycle convoy.

January 5. Yasuj. Armed rioter shoots at bypassers and security.

January 5. Koushk. Armed rioters attack a pro-government march.

January 6. Tehran. Clash between police and rioters in front of Sina hospital. Both sides claim the other threw tear gas on the street.

January 7, Charmahal, Bakhtiari. Close up footage of a masked rioter with a keffiyah covering his face and baseball cap shouting Marg Bar Khamenei and shooting off-frame with a shotgun.

January 8, location unspecified. Shooters ambush a police motorcycle convoy, shooting them as they drive by.

January 8, Kermanshah. Nightvision camera / CCTV captures shooters shooting (but not what they’re shooting).

January 8, Hamedan. Rioters kill a police major, Mohammed Javed Bakshian and 6 civilians. A news item on the aftermath shows destroyed buildings and some CCTV footage of the riots.

January 9, Tabarsi Boulevard, Mashhad. Rioting leads to deaths, including security forces’ Mostafa Abufazeli.

January 9, 8:50pm. Shushtar videos of rifle man and shotgun man, and of a female rioter with a machete.

January 10. Police claim to have killed 1 rioter in a firefight in Mashhad.

January 10. Police claim to have killed 1 and arrested 6 rioters in Ilam.

4. Attacks on buildings or on people. Rioters shoot or throw Molotov Cocktails at public or private buildings or at security personnel or other people

Arak, December 31 night time, cellphone video.

January 3, Zahedan. Masked rioters loot a grocery store. CCTV footage.

January 6. Abdanan. Protesters loot a supermarket, Ofogh Kourosh, dump all the rice in the street, and take selfies (does this remind you of anything?)

January 7. Location unspecified. Rioters burn down a religious bookstore.

January 8, burning of a Basij seminary. Location unspecified.

January 8, Alireza, 17, shot and killed.

January 8, 2-year old Bahareh, shot in Shahid Beheshti street in Nishapur, died January 15.

January 8, 3-year old Melina in Kermanshah, going to a pharmacy with her parents shot by armed rioters.

January 8, location unspecified. CCTV footage of rioters vandalizing a bank.

January 8, rioters burn the shrine of Sabzeqaba, CCTV footage from various cameras.

January 8, rioters burn the Shahid Montazeri mosque in Shushtar.

January 8, 15th Khordad Square in Shushtar, rioters attack a passerby on a truck.

January 8, Ardebil. Phone video of armed masked rioters attacking a grocery store and a Sepah bank.

January 8, Ilam Province, village of Lumar. Rioters attack the Keshavarzi bank. Cellphone footage.

January 9, Mahdieh Mosque in Karaj. Rioters burn the mosque and Qurans in the mosque. Whose operating procedure is that?

January 9, Sabzevar, Khorasan. CCTV footage shows a Molotov attack on a civilian house.

January 9, Mobarakeh, Isfahan. Torched a grocery store, totally burned.

January 9, Sabzevar, Khorasan. CCTV of children running from a Molotov attack.

January 9, Gorgan, Golestan. Several shops and other areas torched.

January 9, location unspecified. Rioter throwing a Molotov at a civilian home.

5. Attacks on state symbols. Rioters attack a governor’s office or police station.

Fasa City governor’s office December 31. Cellphone video.

Azna, Lorestan, January 1. Several police vehicles set on fire, 3 killed, 7 injured.

January 1, 9am. Lordegan Governor’s office. Masked rioters throw stones and shoot at police.

January 2, Police Station 11 Marvdasht (Fars Province), rioters try to seize the station and are scattered when police fire into the air.

January 3, Tabriz. Rioter uses Molotovs to try to set the Tabriz Chamber of Builds building on fire. Cellphone footage.

January 4. Malekshahi, Ilam Province. Rioters attempt to storm a Basij outpost and are scattered when police fire into the air.

January 8, 200 rioters with molotov cocktails attack the residence of Salam al-Zawawi, the Palestinian Ambassador. Who would want to attack the Palestinian Ambassador in particular?

January 8, attack on police station 126, Tehranpars. Police and Basij were killed.

New Mossad Recruitment Ads Exploit Iran’s Unrest With Help From US Comedian

No politics, organized on the internet
AryJeay commented: “In this year’s riots, we see no prior statements, organized gatherings, formal protests, or specific pre-announced locations. Suddenly, a group pours into the streets and riots in specific locations that are close to sensitive, infrastructural, vital, and security-military sites. They then steer the riot toward these locations in order to gain access to firearms and ammunition.”

Rioters always dressed in black and were masked. They moved around at night with confidence and fluidly knew how to burn motorcycles, take the rods off of street signs, wield machetes and swords, and use shotguns and rifles.

In confessions shown on Iranian TV, arrested rioters say they were recruited based on their online behavior and what kinds of posts they “liked”, then messaged and organized and trained via Telegram and WhatsApp, paid specific rates based on what kinds of attacks they could prove they did (using video evidence), and some were ultimately told they were of no value and shot by their handlers. “They had precise intelligence of coordination with separatists and terrorists on the part of US and Israel. “They even planned for each separated region to draft its own constitution, and they directed arms smuggling, as well as financial & logistical support.” The rates are around $6000 for killing people, $2375 for burning each vehicle, $850 for burning police stations, $175 for any other disruption.”

Other arrested rioters told news agencies that they felt they had been set up to die in fires, sent up into buildings to set fires only to find their planned exit blocked. Iranian authorities called this “project killings”, in which riot organizers killed other rioters with the intent of blaming the state for the deaths.

One arrested rioter said: “The same person who called for the unrest attacked me, and after some time passed, he shot me and said, ‘You’re no longer of any use.’” Team leaders pursued manufacturing deaths and provoking public emotions by killing their own operatives and rioters with close-range shots to the head.”

By January 10, likely due to the internet shutdown on the 8-9, the tide had turned and on January 12, there were massive demonstrations in support of the government (there had been these all along, including mass funerals, but this was the largest culmination).

Iran also jammed the Starlink network and reported arrests and unraveling of networks, safe houses, and seizure of massive numbers of weapons over the following days, before finally restoring internet connectivity more than a week later.

The Iranian medical authorities gave the following summary of all damage: 184 ambulances attacked and damaged. 6 completely destroyed and burned. Directly hit with bullets in Teheran. Molotov cocktail attack on an ambulance in Rafsanjan while on active mission. 54 injured. 4 hospitals attacked.

AryJeay gave the following roundup of property damage: 250 mosques damaged. 20 religious centers. Imamanieh mosque in Golestan province. Hundreds of vehicles burned in Teheran. 364 large stores. 419 small stores. Damage reported across 30 provinces. $5.3 million in fire department vehicles. $14 million in bank damages. 317 bank branches destroyed. 4700 bank branches damaged. 1400 ATMs damaged. 250 ATMs permanently out of service. $6.6 million in damages to electricity sector. 265 schools damaged. 3 libraries set on fire. 8 cultural heritage sites damaged. 4 cinemas (Tehran, Nishapur, Boruejd, Shahin Shahr).

Ayatollah Khamenei explained in a speech the state’s theory of how the riots had unfolded: ‘one group of individuals carefully selected, identified, and trained abroad. Others, malicious elements and criminals. And others, naive teenagers: “These are the foot soldiers. Their mission is to go and attack a place, like a police station, a house, an office, a bank, an industrial center, an electricity facility. That is their mission. The ringleaders gather in groups of 10, 20, or 50 people each, guide them, and tell them: You must go here, do this, and commit crimes, and they do.”’

The final Iranian government tally of those killed in the insurgency was over 3,000. AryJeay estimates ⅔ of these were pro-government security forces and civilians, and ⅓ were rioters. This is higher than the 1,000+ Iranians killed in the 12-day war with Israel and the US in 2025.

What was this? A military analysis
The US and Israel were open about Mossad’s support for the rioters and for their goal, the destruction of the Iranian state. Mike Pompeo tweeted “happy new year to the protesters and to Mossad walking beside them.” Mossad told protesters “we are with you, in the field.” Trump posted to protesters that help was on the way, and as the riots unfolded – attacking groceries, emergency responders, government buildings, mosques, and random people on the street to sow insecurity and terror – a US armada approached Iran. As that armada approached, the US-backed regime in Syria made a final push in the Northeast to reach the Iraq border, releasing thousands of Islamic State prisoners.

The riots may have been envisioned to have achieved more than they did – and they might have done, had the state not shut down the internet and starlink – causing the state to approach collapse just in time for a US invasion to finish Iran off.

The state didn’t collapse, but the war may be coming regardless.

(Substack)

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

By: Prince Kapone – January 28, 2026

Reuters sells custodial plunder as a pricing issue, turning blockade into “market caution.” We restore the missing record: seizures, supervision, and the re-routing of Venezuelan oil revenue through imperial hands. We reframe the contradiction as doctrine—Fortress America tightening hemispheric command as multipolar escape routes multiply. We close with a call to organize: break the information blockade, target the choke points, and build material solidarity with the besieged.

How a Struggle Over Power Gets Rewritten as a “Market Update”
The article under excavation is Chen Aizhu’s Reuters report, “Exclusive: PetroChina holds off from buying Venezuelan oil marketed under U.S. control, sources say” (Jan. 27, 2026). In basic reporting terms, Reuters claims PetroChina has instructed its trading desks to avoid Venezuelan crude after Washington “took control” of Venezuela’s oil exports, and it frames the decision as a mix of sanctions-risk, pricing dynamics, and uncertainty over how any remaining China–Venezuela “oil-for-debt” flows might be reallocated under the new U.S.-supervised marketing channels. The piece points to Vitol and Trafigura as intermediaries moving Venezuelan barrels toward U.S. and European refiners, notes narrowing discounts for Merey heavy crude, and concludes that Venezuelan supply into China will stay tight as buyers shift toward alternative grades. This is the story Reuters wants to naturalize: coerced re-routing presented as market adjustment, and geopolitical seizure translated into a trader’s problem.

Reuters tells this story like it’s giving a shipping forecast, not describing a clash over who controls a nation’s lifeline. In “PetroChina holds off from buying Venezuelan oil marketed under U.S. control,” the drama of power is quietly repackaged as a matter of spreads, discounts, and supply flows. The language is calm, technical, almost soothing — as if the only thing at stake is whether a refinery can shave a few dollars off a barrel. What disappears in that calm tone is the fact that we are not reading about weather patterns in the North Sea. We are reading about control — and who gets to decide where a country’s oil goes.

Look at the grammar. PetroChina “holds off.” Traders are “told not to touch.” Supply will “remain tight.” Buyers will be “nudged” toward alternatives. Nobody seizes, nobody compels, nobody imposes. Power has no verbs. It shows up only as a background condition, like humidity. The phrase “marketed under U.S. control” slips by as if it were a routine customs arrangement, not a sentence that should make any reader sit upright. Control is presented as administrative, procedural, technical — the kind of thing handled by paperwork, not politics. The question of how that control came to be is simply outside the story’s universe.

Instead, the market becomes the hero of the narrative. Prices “narrow.” Offers are “uncompetitive.” Cargoes “flow.” Refiners “approach.” The world is reduced to a choreography of barrels moving across oceans in search of the best margin. When politics appears, it appears only as “uncertainty” — a nuisance variable that traders must price in. This is a familiar move in business reporting: treat power as risk, treat domination as disruption, treat coercion as a complication to otherwise normal commerce. The effect is not neutrality. It is a way of teaching the reader what not to see.

Agency is carefully relocated downward. Anonymous “trading executives” and “sources” explain what is happening, while the actors shaping the terrain remain unnamed, abstract, almost atmospheric. Decisions are framed as responses to market signals, not to structures of force. It’s as if the traders woke up one morning, looked at a price screen, and said, “Well, that’s that,” rather than operating in a world where access, legality, and permission are politically defined. By the time the reader reaches the end of the piece, the story feels like a lesson in commodity logistics, not a window into a struggle over sovereignty.

The technocratic tone does the rest of the ideological work. Talk of discounts to Brent, delivery months, and refinery preferences creates distance — emotional, political, human distance. It narrows the field of vision until only the commercial surface remains. When everything is translated into price language, moral language quietly exits the building. No one asks what it means for a country’s main export to be “under” someone else’s control. No one asks who benefits from that arrangement or who pays the cost. The only tragedy visible in this frame is an unfavorable spread.

And then there is the sourcing. Anonymous market voices are treated as natural authorities, as if the trading desk were the neutral center of the universe. Other perspectives — ones that would name this as a political rupture rather than a pricing issue — are simply not invited into the text. The story is engineered for circulation among analysts and investors. It is designed to be clipped into briefings and forwarded along email chains as a tidy explanation: PetroChina pauses, Western traders step in, prices adjust. Clean, efficient, bloodless.

This is how normalization works. An extraordinary shift in control over a nation’s resource stream is narrated as routine commercial adaptation. What should sound like a confrontation is written like a procurement memo. Power is naturalized; markets are personified; politics is downgraded to background noise. The reader is left with the impression that events are being sorted out by the invisible hand, when in fact very visible hands have rearranged the table.

So before we argue about what this situation means, we have to be clear about what this article does. It performs a translation. It takes a struggle over authority and rewrites it as a story about arbitrage. It takes questions of sovereignty and dissolves them into talk of competitiveness. That translation is not accidental. It is the text’s central achievement. And once you see that move, you can’t unsee it: the calm voice of the market report is doing ideological labor, turning a matter of power into a matter of price.

What the Market Story Leaves Out of the Frame
Reuters tells the story like a trader’s morning brief: PetroChina steps back, Vitol and Trafigura step in, barrels move, discounts shift, risk is assessed. Washington, we are told, has redirected Venezuelan oil exports, placed a large share of those barrels under U.S. control, and arranged for sales proceeds to flow into a U.S.-supervised fund. Some cargoes have already landed with refiners like Valero, Phillips 66, and Repsol, while traders shop others around India and China. In this telling, the drama of a nation’s primary resource is reduced to a change of middlemen and a question of who is willing to sign the paperwork.

PetroChina’s hesitation is explained with the cool logic of the spreadsheet. Risk on one side, price on the other. Reuters cites traders who say the discount on Venezuela’s heavy Merey crude into China has narrowed, making it less attractive against Canadian barrels or sanctioned flows from Iran and Russia. There is also concern, we are told, about how rerouted cargoes might tangle with China’s long-standing debt-for-oil arrangements with Caracas. And, the reader is gently reminded, Venezuelan crude is only a small share of China’s overall imports anyway, much of it historically handled by independent “teapot” refiners. Case closed: just another portfolio adjustment in the grand bazaar of global oil.

But step out of this narrow hallway of trader chatter and a very different landscape comes into view. China’s Foreign Ministry has publicly stated that the U.S. seizure of Venezuela’s president and use of force against Caracas “clearly violate international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter” and called for Maduro’s release and dialogue; the ministry has also condemned “hegemonic acts” by the United States that “seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Chinese officials have stressed that cooperation between China and Venezuela is cooperation between sovereign states protected by international law and the domestic laws of both countries, and that the use of force and unilateral coercive measures against Venezuela’s oil industry have undermined economic and social order. None of that appears in the Reuters frame, where the only “problem” is whether a barrel clears at the right discount.

Chinese officials have also characterized long-running U.S. sanctions as illegal unilateral measures and tied Washington’s latest escalations—like the blockade posture around Venezuelan oil flows—to wider shocks in normal international trade and regional stability. This shifts the terrain entirely. What Reuters treats as market “uncertainty” is, from Beijing’s standpoint, the result of deliberate political pressure that has reshaped the ground on which trade takes place. PetroChina’s pause, in this light, is not just caution in a volatile market; it is navigation through a field altered by coercive power. Yet in the Reuters version, this structural upheaval is translated into the soft, anesthetizing language of “assessment,” as if the storm were just bad weather rather than a man-made squall.

Equally missing is how “U.S. control” over Venezuelan oil is said to work in practice. Chinese financial reporting has described U.S. officials outlining arrangements in which Venezuelan oil sales are supervised and revenues placed into accounts under U.S. control. Other reporting has referred to executive actions establishing legal and administrative custody structures over Venezuelan oil income held in the United States. This is not simply about where ships sail; it is about who grips the cash register once the oil is sold. By the time crude reaches a refinery, the decisive struggle may already have occurred at the level of financial command. That dimension—who holds the money, who releases it, under what conditions—is central to understanding what “control” means, yet it is smoothed over in the Reuters narrative.

Statements attributed to U.S. leadership have circulated in international reporting as well, including remarks about the United States effectively taking possession of tens of millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil. Whether dressed up as leverage, compensation, or strategic necessity, such talk places the issue squarely at the level of state power and resource capture. But the Reuters article does not invite the reader to see it that way. Instead, Western trading houses stepping into Venezuelan flows are presented as a normal commercial development, as if the only change were a new management team rather than a shift in who commands a nation’s lifeblood.

From the regional side, the language is far sharper than anything allowed into the market frame. The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP) has condemned what it calls illegal military aggression and demanded the release of Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro, describing his kidnapping as a grave violation of international law and a threat to regional peace. Venezuelan official communiqués have similarly spoken of attacks on national territory and infrastructure. Whatever one’s view of every claim, these positions show that key actors in the region understand the moment as a political and military confrontation, not a routine reshuffling of supply routes. That understanding disappears once the story is filtered through the safe grammar of commodity trading.

Civil society and legal voices across the Global South have also weighed in, condemning unilateral military action and warning about the destabilizing precedents such actions set for international law. Their interventions place the episode within a longer history of external interference in Latin America, where economic pressure and force have often marched together. Yet these perspectives do not enter the Reuters field of vision, which remains fixed on traders, refiners, and pricing formulas. Reality is narrowed until the legal and political stakes are pushed offstage and the market mechanics take the spotlight.

Inside Venezuela, regional reporting has focused on how oil revenues under current conditions are being handled domestically, including announcements of funds directed toward workers’ incomes and social programs and the creation of bodies tasked with defending the country’s economic rights internationally. Whatever the precise numbers, this layer of the story makes clear that Venezuelan authorities are treating the situation as one of national survival and reconstruction, not a minor fluctuation in export margins. None of this social and institutional response is legible in the Reuters account, where the only visible actors are companies, cargoes, and the invisible hand that somehow always seems to wear a naval glove.

Finally, there is the maritime dimension. Spanish-language reporting has described tanker interceptions and seizures that Venezuelan officials have characterized as acts of “international piracy”. Whether one adopts that term or not, the reporting indicates that shipping routes themselves have become sites of enforcement and confrontation. The sea is not a neutral highway but a contested space where interdiction, compliance risk, and the threat of asset seizure shape what moves and what does not. Yet in the Reuters narrative, the ocean appears calm and commercial, as if barrels drifted to market on the gentle currents of supply and demand alone.

Taken together, these omitted layers—official Chinese condemnations, revenue control mechanisms, regional denunciations, Global South legal concerns, domestic Venezuelan responses, and maritime enforcement—compose a record that looks nothing like a routine market adjustment. They point instead to a struggle over authority, legality, and control of resource flows. Reuters does not so much falsify this reality as flatten it, translating a multi-dimensional confrontation into one safe dialect: the language of price. Next we will analyze what that flattening means. For now, it is enough to see how much had to be pushed out of frame to make the story look “normal.”

Former Manager of PDVSA: Trump’s Oil Viceroyalty Over Venezuela Is Fantasy (Interview)

Community or Command: How Siege Replaces Sovereignty in the American Pole
Once the omitted record is restored, the Reuters story collapses under its own narrowness. What is presented as a pricing problem is in fact a doctrine being enforced. The question is not whether Venezuelan crude clears at an attractive discount. The question is who commands its movement, who supervises its revenue, and who decides which nations are permitted to touch it at all. Prices are the surface signal. Authority is the substance underneath.

This is where the hemispheric contradiction comes into focus. Latin America and the Caribbean now sit between two incompatible logics of world order. One treats the region as a political subject capable of diversifying partners, widening development options, and acting collectively in a multipolar transition. The other treats the hemisphere as managed space — a strategic rear base where sovereignty is tolerated only when it remains harmless. Under that second logic, instability is not social breakdown; it is disobedience. And security is not protection; it is enforcement.

What we are witnessing around Venezuelan oil is that enforcement made material. Control here does not mean ownership in a formal sense. It means custody over circulation — authority over where oil flows, how it is sold, and through which financial channels its value is realized. That is why revenue supervision matters as much as tanker routes. When the flow of income from a country’s primary resource passes through externally administered channels, sovereignty is hollowed out without a single flag being lowered. The state continues to exist, but its lifeblood moves under someone else’s supervision.

This is not collapse. It is administration. Earlier imperial playbooks sought regime change — the dramatic replacement of governments. That approach proved unstable. What replaces it is regime subordination: local authorities remain in place, but within a narrowing corridor defined by external power. Leaders are not treated as sovereign decision-makers; they are treated as managers of a pressured system, tasked with maintaining domestic order while strategic decisions about resources, trade, and alignment are made elsewhere. Sovereignty becomes conditional — revocable when it obstructs hemispheric control.

Oil becomes the ideal lever in this system not because it is scarce, but because it is infrastructural. Its movement depends on insurers, shipping registries, ports, refineries, and financial clearing systems — arenas where imperial power still dominates. By turning access to those systems into a permission structure, empire converts economic life into a behavioral mechanism. Exports flow when compliant. They constrict when defiant. Development itself becomes conditional, granted or withdrawn through logistical choke points rather than tanks.

This is the evolution from persuasion to siege. Hyper-imperial power has learned that occupation is expensive and politically corrosive. Blockade, by contrast, is sustainable. It disciplines without administering. It punishes without rebuilding. It tightens gradually, through seizures, insurance denials, port restrictions, and financial custody mechanisms that appear technical but function as strangulation. No single act looks like invasion, yet the cumulative effect is the same: a society forced to negotiate its survival under permanent external pressure.

Law, in this phase, does not disappear — it inverts. International law ceases to restrain power and becomes irrelevant background noise, while domestic imperial law trails behind force as paperwork. The question asked in the imperial center is not whether an act violates global norms, but whether internal procedures were followed after the fact. Legality becomes administrative, not ethical. The world is treated as an extension of imperial jurisdiction, where force is justified by indictment rather than treaty.

Seen from this angle, the Venezuelan case is not an anomaly but a prototype. It demonstrates how the American Pole consolidates itself under conditions of global decline: not by expanding outward, but by tightening control inward. The hemisphere becomes a fortified zone where rival influence is denied, resource flows are supervised, and sovereignty is reduced to a compliance status. What appears in the Reuters narrative as a market adjustment is, in fact, the visible edge of this consolidation.

And this is why the story must be told in structural, not commercial, terms. The struggle is not over discounts. It is over whether Latin America and the Caribbean will be treated as community — actors in a multipolar world — or as command territory, managed through siege and supervision. The barrel is not just a barrel. It is a lever in a system where circulation equals control. What is being enforced is not a trade preference. It is a doctrine: sovereignty by permission, development by approval, and survival by alignment.

Break the Siege Where You Stand
Reuters wants you to treat this as a “trading decision” inside the clean, air-conditioned world of “marketed under U.S. control.” But once you accept that phrase, you’ve already swallowed the empire’s premise: that Washington can kidnap a country’s presidency, patrol its sea lanes, reroute its crude, and then call it “control” the way a bank calls a foreclosure “property management.” If that language stands, everything stands. The seizure becomes paperwork. The blockade becomes “market conditions.” Piracy becomes “compliance.” And the working class—here and abroad—gets trained to watch theft like it’s a weather report.

So Part IV is simple: if this is a system of coercion, then resistance has to be organized at the points where coercion becomes real. Not in the abstract. Not in hashtags alone. At the chokepoints: ports, banks, refineries, shipping insurance, logistics contracts, newsroom storylines, and political offices that sign off on “sanctions enforcement” while pleading poverty at home. The good news is: people are already moving. You don’t have to invent solidarity out of thin air—you have to join it, sharpen it, and bring it into the workplaces and institutions where the empire actually functions.

On the anti-war front, coordinated action is already being called for. Veterans For Peace helped circulate a clear anti-imperialist statement condemning U.S. attacks on Venezuela and demanding respect for sovereignty. Alliance for Global Justice has promoted “days of anti-war actions” and labor-linked solidarity messaging, including statements from trade union leadership defending Latin America as a “territory of peace.” And international solidarity is not theoretical—people across regions have already mobilized publicly against the abduction-and-blockade escalation, as reported by outlets rooted in movement politics such as Workers World and in the Global South–aligned analysis ecosystem like Tricontinental, which has tracked demonstrations and statements across Asia and the Pacific.

That’s one lane: streets, embassies, political pressure. But if we’re serious, we have to widen the front into material interruption—because the empire doesn’t run on opinion, it runs on throughput. Ports matter because seizures become real only when cargo is handled, tankers are serviced, and refined products are processed without friction. Labor has historic precedent for refusing complicity in imperial supply chains. You can see the pattern in recent dockworker solidarity actions internationally documented by labor networks (even when focused on other fronts): when workers treat the port as a political site, “foreign policy” stops being a distant spectacle and becomes a domestic contradiction inside the workplace. The lesson transfers: if Venezuelan crude is being “redirected,” then the question for workers in logistics, shipping, and refining is whether they will be turned into the empire’s hands—loading, servicing, and normalizing what is, in substance, coerced transfer.

So the call here is not romantic. It’s practical. If you are in organized labor—or you have ties to it—push for internal education and resolutions against sanctions and maritime coercion; link up with anti-war coalitions already doing public work; and treat “sanctions enforcement” as a workers’ issue because it is. If you’re in communities shaped by austerity, make the connection plain: the same state that claims the right to hold another people’s oil revenue in “supervised” funds will tell you there’s no money for clinics, schools, housing, transit, or disaster preparedness. Empire abroad is austerity at home with a different costume.

There is also a legal battlefield—but not the fantasy one where empire politely restrains itself. The point is to raise the cost and delegitimize the architecture: to force public confrontation with the fact that kidnapping a head of state and seizing resource flows has “no justification in international law,” even by establishment legal standards. That matters because it creates fractures inside the imperial coalition and gives movements more leverage when they organize domestically. Even institutions like Chatham House have publicly stated the abduction has no legal justification—use that contradiction as a wedge: if even the empire’s respectable law programs can’t launder it, why should workers and communities accept it as normal?

And finally: the information front. Reuters is not “misinformed.” It is doing its job—manufacturing the emotional climate in which plunder feels administrative. Our job is counter-production: build a people’s account of what’s happening that names coercion plainly and refuses the grammar of empire. Share and circulate reporting and statements from solidarity organizations; amplify Global South perspectives; translate, annotate, and distribute. If the enemy can say “U.S. control” with a straight face, then we have to make “sovereignty” sound like a living demand again—not a museum word. The fight is to make working people recognize the pattern: custodianship is colonialism with a spreadsheet.

So: join the formations already in motion. Plug into the anti-war actions. Build workplace education where logistics and energy workers can see their own hands in the machine. Pressure elected officials where it counts—sanctions authorities, enforcement budgets, port and shipping governance, refinery contracting. And turn solidarity into relationship: direct links to Venezuelan popular organizations, unions, and community structures through credible solidarity networks, not through NGO theater. Because the only thing that breaks a siege is organized force from below—force that refuses to be recruited into the empire’s supply chain and refuses to let theft be renamed “market order.”

(Weaponized Information)

---

From Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond via This RSS Feed.

This article by Arturo Sánchez Jiménez originally appeared in the January 28, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Mexico City. At the José Martí Cultural Center, the diplomat emphasized that even the shipment of fuel and food to Cuba is currently being “criminalized.” “Who could possibly think it’s a crime for a ship to enter Cuba with food, with fuel that we use for lighting, cooking, and transportation?” she asked, arguing that the U.S. measures aim to prevent any basic commercial activity on the island.

The United States “persecutes anyone who might help Cubans,” stated Johana Tablada, deputy chief of mission at the Cuban embassy in Mexico, on Wednesday, denouncing the tightening of the blockade and new actions that, she said, seek to suffocate the island. At a ceremony commemorating the 173rd anniversary of José Martí’s birth, Tablada, speaking on behalf of Ambassador Eugenio Martínez—who was unable to attend due to unforeseen circumstances—asserted that the Cuban people will follow the example of their national hero in defending the island’s right to choose its own destiny.

Tablada asserted that the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States not only remains in place but has intensified in recent years, directly impacting the daily lives of Cuban families. He stated that Washington “is doing everything necessary to impoverish Cuba, destabilize it, and regain its dominance,” while simultaneously persecuting third countries, banks, and companies that attempt to maintain normal relations with the island.

The diplomatic representative linked this policy to a long history of aggression against Cuban sovereignty, from the imposition of the Guantanamo naval base to the current unilateral coercive measures. She affirmed that, in the face of this scenario, the figure of José Martí continues to be a source of inspiration for resistance. “Martí gives us strength to resist and overcome today, in the midst of the greatest adversity,” she said, highlighting his anti-imperialist thought and his defense of the dignity of the peoples of the Americas.

In her speech, Tablada also explicitly thanked Mexico for its historic stance against the blockade. She acknowledged the Mexican government’s constant support in international forums and the solidarity of the Mexican people with Cuba. “We are very grateful to Mexico for its unwavering support and its constant calls to end the abuse that the blockade represents against the Cuban people,” he said.

She maintained that Cuba will continue to pursue a “civilized and respectful” relationship with the United States, but without relinquishing its sovereignty. “Do not mistreat us, and we will not mistreat you. Respect us, and we will respect you,” he said, quoting Martí.

• 

  News Briefs

  Cuban Embassy Denounces US Blockade Tightening & Persecution of Those Who Help

  January 29, 2026

  Johana Tablada asserted that the Cuban people will follow the example of their national hero in defending the island’s right to choose its own destiny.

• 

  News Briefs

  Mexico’s Supreme Court Will Incorporate Legal Knowledge of Indigenous & Afro-Mexican Peoples

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  “[Justice] must get closer to reality, and to get closer to reality we need method, we need knowledge, we need systematization, we need the people who demand justice, who cry out for justice, who mobilize out there.”

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 29

  January 29, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on Donald Trump phonecall, relations with Canada, revising the story of Ryan Wedding’s “arrest”, Sinaloa security, and Interoceanic train derailment.

The post Cuban Embassy Denounces US Blockade Tightening & Persecution of Those Who Help appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

This article by Ivan Evair Saldaña originally appeared in the January 29, 2026 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.

Mexico City. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) created the Community Research System (SIC), a mechanism that seeks to incorporate the legal knowledge of indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples—derived from their history, practices and defense of human rights—into the drafting of resolutions by judges, magistrates and ministers of the country.

The SIC, which is part of the Center for Constitutional Studies and Legal Knowledge (CECSJ) of the high court, expands the traditional vision of law, makes legal pluralism a reality and allows this knowledge to become part of its national history, said Supreme Court President Hugo Aguilar Ortiz during the presentation ceremony of the system.

“I am convinced that justice must abandon formality. I say it won’t be abandoned entirely, but it must get closer to reality, and to get closer to reality we need method, we need knowledge, we need systematization, we need the people who demand justice, who cry out for justice, who mobilize out there, to systematize their arguments and bring them to us. And for that, research is required, applied research,” criticized the representative of the Federal Judiciary (PJF).

Supreme Court President, Hugo Aguilar Ortiz

He also emphasized that the goal is to transform the justice system through applied research that directly impacts sentences and conflict resolution, overcoming views that have historically minimized community knowledge.

“You could say that outside, in the Western world, art is produced, but if we see something in rural communities, it’s called crafts, it has less value. If it’s a rule established by the State, it’s law; but if the community produces it, it’s custom and tradition. If we see a priest performing his ritual, well, he’s a priest, but if we see our village elder perform a cleansing, a ritual, well, he’s a witch doctor. If someone tells a story, well, it’s not documented, it’s part of oral tradition, it’s a myth, but if a scholar tells it, it’s history. Anything that Indigenous people produce, anything that our very being produces; you can stand up and say, well, he’s Indigenous, he doesn’t know, he doesn’t have the capacity,” he emphasized.

Orlando Aragón Andrade, director general of the CECSJ, pointed out that, given the plurality of justice and legal systems, it is necessary to build bridges of dialogue to move toward a more democratic society and a more inclusive court. In turn, Iván Ramos Méndez, representing the head of the INPI, Adelfo Regino Montes, stated that following the 2024 constitutional reform, there are more than 16,000 normative systems in force in Mexico.

Also participating in the presentation were Catalina Ramírez Hernández, from the Judicial Administration Body; Palmira Flores García, an indigenous community researcher from San Luis Potosí; and Sael Silva Cisneros, an Afro-Mexican community researcher from Guerrero.

• 

  News Briefs

  Mexico’s Supreme Court Will Incorporate Legal Knowledge of Indigenous & Afro-Mexican Peoples

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  “[Justice] must get closer to reality, and to get closer to reality we need method, we need knowledge, we need systematization, we need the people who demand justice, who cry out for justice, who mobilize out there.”

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 29

  January 29, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on Donald Trump phonecall, relations with Canada, revising the story of Ryan Wedding’s “arrest”, Sinaloa security, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Mexico’s Ex-President Felipe Calderón Called a “murderer” in France

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  Calderón’s specious drug war produced 120,000 homicides during his reign, representing an 140% increase compared to the previous presidential term.

The post Mexico’s Supreme Court Will Incorporate Legal Knowledge of Indigenous & Afro-Mexican Peoples appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.

Every day, President Claudia Sheinbaum gives a morning presidential press conference and Mexico Solidarity Media posts English language summaries, translated by Mexico Solidarity’s Pedro Gellert Frank. Previous press conference summaries are available here.

Direct Dialogue with US: Cooperation Without Subordination

President Claudia Sheinbaum held a 40-minute call with Donald Trump. They agreed to continue cooperation on trade and security. Trump acknowledged Mexico’s progress and proposed expanding rules of origin. Mexico defended the trilateral trade agreement.

Sheinbaum read Trump’s Truth Social message, where he described the conversation as “very productive” and positive for both countries.

Relations with Canada and Sovereign Decisions

Sheinbaum recalled Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit, emphasizing that cooperation includes strategic infrastructure such as ports. The issue of rare earths was not a topic of the call but remains in the dialogue with Minister of Economy Marcelo Ebrard; any decision will be sovereign.

Arrest of Ryan Wedding Didn’t Involve Foreign Agents

In response to reports of FBI intervention, the President clarified that, upon reading the full Wall Street Journal article, it is in line with what was reported, namely that the arrest was carried out in an operation involving Mexican security cabinet agencies. Mexico will not allow foreign agents to intervene within its territory.

Sinaloa: Coordination and Progress

The Federal Government is working with the Sinaloa state government. Arrests have already been made. The Ministry of the Interior maintains communication with the injured Citizen Movement local legislators Sergio Torres Félix and Elizabeth Montoya Ojeda. Advances in security were reported, and a presidential visit was announced for the coming days.

Historical Memory: The Presidential Administration of Violence

Following the accusations leveled against former president Felipe Calderón at Sciences Po, Sheinbaum said the charges are “self-explanatory.” She recalled that his government left thousands of victims in the wake of the war on drugs, “collateral damage,” and the worst period of kidnappings, plus collusion with organized crime, as evidenced by his Minister of Security, Genaro García Luna, who is currently in prison.

She emphasized that discussing that period is key so young people know of the history before voting.

Interoceanic Train: Report with Scientific Evidence

The first report is based on technical evidence, namely, data from the “black box” and intensive track reviews. The preliminary cause was excess speed. People should trust the Attorney General’s Office report, which is underpinned by simulations and technical analysis.

---

• 

  News Briefs

  Mexico’s Supreme Court Will Incorporate Legal Knowledge of Indigenous & Afro-Mexican Peoples

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  “[Justice] must get closer to reality, and to get closer to reality we need method, we need knowledge, we need systematization, we need the people who demand justice, who cry out for justice, who mobilize out there.”

• 

  Mañanera

  People’s Mañanera January 29

  January 29, 2026

  President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on Donald Trump phonecall, relations with Canada, revising the story of Ryan Wedding’s “arrest”, Sinaloa security, and Interoceanic train derailment.

• 

  News Briefs

  Mexico’s Ex-President Felipe Calderón Called a “murderer” in France

  January 29, 2026January 29, 2026

  Calderón’s specious drug war produced 120,000 homicides during his reign, representing an 140% increase compared to the previous presidential term.

The post People’s Mañanera January 29 appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

---

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.