Sen. Lindsey Graham warned that the U.S. mission in Venezuela must end with Nicolás Maduro removed from power, arguing that leaving the embattled leader in place after a major U.S. show of force would be a ‘fatal mistake to our standing in the world.’

‘If after all this, we still leave this guy in power… that’s the worst possible signal you can send to Russia, China, Iran,’ Graham, R-S.C., told reporters after a classified all-senator briefing with War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Trump administration officials did not say whether a series of narco-strikes in the Caribbean could escalate into direct strikes against Venezuelan territory or a broader campaign to oust Maduro. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital the briefing was ‘absent of specificity and detail’ and left ‘more questions than answers.’

‘I want to reassert, again, you cannot allow this man to be standing after this display of force, and I did not get a very good answer as to what happens,’ Graham said. ‘What I want is some clarity going forward. Is that in fact the goal?… If it’s not the goal, it is a huge mistake.’

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he heard from briefers that there is a ‘very good process of determining if something’s a target or not’ before striking narco-trafficking boats, but the administration did not clarify its broader strategy toward the Maduro regime. 

‘Right now the focus has been on the boats,’ Bacon said. ‘I don’t know what we’re doing yet with Venezuela writ large.’

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said the classified session also failed to address core questions. 

‘I actually think that was, for me, more of an exercise in futility. I really have no answers. Really didn’t gain anything more than what the public already has gotten,’ he said. He added that there was ‘really no conversation about why… we got 15,000 troops there,’ arguing the deployment ‘doesn’t seem to be just about narcotics trafficking.’ 

Meeks said briefers provided ‘no real rational decision or real answers’ about whether the U.S. is preparing for ‘a war in Venezuela,’ raising what he described as a pressing war powers issue. He said he plans to bring forward legislation this week addressing the recent strikes ‘in the Pacific, in the Caribbean’ as well as any potential move by Trump ‘to go into Venezuela.’

Rubio told reporters the mission is ‘focused on dismantling the infrastructure of these terrorist organizations that are operating in our hemisphere, undermining the security of Americans, killing Americans, poisoning Americans.’

Hegseth told reporters the War Department would not release video footage of the Sept. 2 narco-strikes — in which Adm. Frank Bradley ordered a ‘double tap’ strike to kill survivors — to the public. The video will instead be shown to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

Graham dismissed the footage as ‘the least of my concerns’ but said he urged Hegseth to release it so Americans could ‘make your own decisions.’

Hegseth and Rubio’s briefing came as the U.S. undertakes its largest military buildup in the region in decades: 15% of all naval assets are now positioned in the Southern Command theater. Graham cited the deployment as evidence that anything short of Maduro’s removal would undermine U.S. credibility. 

‘It got, yeah, 15% of the Navy pointed to this guy,’ he said.

Graham also pointed to historical precedent, arguing the U.S. has acted similarly when confronting hostile or destabilizing regimes. 

‘We have legal authority, in my view, to do in Venezuela what we did regarding Panama and Haiti,’ he said, recalling that in 1989 the U.S. ‘literally invaded Panama… took the president in power and put him in jail.’

He said he believes Trump intends a comparable outcome. 

‘Every indication by President Trump is that the purpose of this operation is to shut down the (Maduro) regime and replace it with something less threatening to the United States,’ Graham said.

Pressed on whether he meant regime change or lethal force, Graham replied: ‘I don’t care as long as he leaves.’

The public is now waiting to see whether the Trump administration will turn to direct strikes on Venezuelan territory as a means of pressuring Maduro to leave power — a step Graham argued is necessary for the operation to succeed.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday ordered a total blockade of oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuela, declaring the Nicolás Maduro regime a foreign terrorist organization and accusing it of using stolen U.S. assets to finance terrorism, trafficking and other criminal activity.

‘Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,’ Trump said on Truth Social. ‘It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before – Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.

‘The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping,’ he continued. ‘For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

‘Therefore, today, I am ordering A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela,’ Trump added. ‘The Illegal Aliens and Criminals that the Maduro Regime has sent into the United States during the weak and inept Biden Administration, are being returned to Venezuela at a rapid pace. America will not allow Criminals, Terrorists, or other Countries, to rob, threaten, or harm our Nation and, likewise, will not allow a Hostile Regime to take our Oil, Land, or any other Assets, all of which must be returned to the United States, IMMEDIATELY.’

Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. had seized an oil tanker called the ‘Skipper’ off the coast of Venezuela, sharply escalating U.S. tensions with the nation. The tanker was seized for allegedly being used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The ‘Skipper’ is a vessel that secretly ferries oil in defiance of sanctions, while also being part of an armada of roughly 1,000 tankers that quietly navigate global sea routes to move oil from sanctioned countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela, according to the administration.

The so-called ‘ghost ships’ sail under foreign flags to obscure their origins, repeatedly change names, shift ownership through shell companies, disable transponders to evade tracking and conduct mid-sea transfers to mask their cargo.

The ‘Skipper’ was loaded with an estimated 1.8 million barrels of oil earlier in December before transferring an estimated 200,000 barrels just before its seizure, Reuters reported.

The oil on the tanker is likely worth $60 million to more than $100 million, based on current average oil prices. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for any additional comment on the estimated price tag of the oil but did not immediately receive a reply. 

The U.S. military has carried out strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats near Venezuela since September as part of Trump’s mission to end the flow of drugs into the nation.

There have been at least 22 strikes on suspected narcotraffickers near Venezuela, killing 87, since September.

The boat strikes are viewed as part of a U.S. pressure campaign on Venezuela likely aimed to not only curb the flow of drugs, but also to oust Maduro as leader of the oil-rich nation. 

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., is being sued by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for tens of billions of dollars in damages for a lawsuit he filed against the country during his time as Missouri’s attorney general.

Schmitt is being sued by the People’s Government of Wuhan Municipality, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences for roughly $50 billion, several years after the lawmaker sued the country during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit, first obtained by Fox News Digital, accused Schmitt, FBI co-deputy director Andrew Bailey, and the state of Missouri of damaging the reputations of China, Wuhan and the associated research facilities through ‘malicious vexatious litigation, fabricating enormous disinformation, and spreading stigmatizing and discriminating slanders.’

Schmitt said in a statement to Fox News Digital that he’d been ‘banned from Communist China, and now I am being sued and targeted by Communist China in a $50 billion lawfare campaign, and I’ll wear it like a badge of honor.’ 

‘China’s sinister malfeasance during the COVID-19 pandemic led to over a million Americans losing their lives, economic turmoil that rocked our country for years, and an enormous amount of human suffering, and as Missouri Attorney General I filed suit to hold them accountable,’ Schmitt said. ‘Instead of trying to defend its indefensible behavior, Communist China responded with frivolous lawfare, attempting to absolve themselves of all wrongdoing in the early days of the pandemic.’ 

‘This novel lawsuit is factually baseless, legally meritless, and any fake judgment a Chinese court issues in this lawsuit we will easily beat back and keep from being enforced against the people of Missouri or me,’ he continued. ‘This is their way of distracting from what the world already knows, China has blood on its hands.’

Schmitt, who served as attorney general for the Show-Me state from 2019 to 2023, sued the PRC, several Chinese government ministries, the Communist Party of China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in early 2020, shortly after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the time, Schmitt accused the Chinese government of withholding information on the COVID-19 virus, failing to contain the outbreak of the virus, and actively hoarding high-quality personal protective equipment (PPE) while producing and selling lower-quality PPE for the rest of the world.

That case resulted in an eventual $24 billion judgment earlier this year.

The lawsuit against Schmitt, Bailey, who resigned as Missouri’s attorney general after he was tapped by President Donald Trump to serve as co-deputy FBI director in September, and Missouri contended that the preceding lawsuit, and statements published across a variety of media outlets, led to severe reputational and economic harm.

They’re demanding that apologies be published in several outlets, including The New York Times, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Chinese media outlets. The apologies come with a price tag, too.

Wuhan and the Chinese government demanded compensation of over 356 billion Chinese Yuan, which converts to just over $50 billion dollars.

A federal judge on Tuesday said he was ‘inclined to deny’ a bid to force the Trump administration to halt construction of the White House ballroom but warned officials not to undertake any irreversible work before a January hearing that could still stop the project.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he will hold another hearing during the second week in January and hinted he may still order a pause.

‘Any below ground construction’ in the coming weeks that dictates above-ground work should be avoided, Leon said, adding, ‘be prepared to take that down.’

Lawyers for the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the U.S. argued the case is not about the need for a ballroom but about the need to follow the law.

They said any construction on federal land requires congressional approval.

Lawyers representing the National Park Service countered that President Trump has authority to direct construction at the White House, saying ‘work must continue for national security issues.’

‘See you in January,’ Leon said as he warned the government not to pursue anything irreversible.

Attorney General Pam Bondi weighed in Tuesday evening.

‘Today @TheJusticeDept attorneys defeated an attempt to stop President Trump’s totally lawful East Wing Modernization and State Ballroom Project,’ she wrote on X. ‘President Trump has faced countless bad-faith left-wing legal attacks – this was no different. We will continue defending the President’s project in court in the coming weeks.’

On Monday, the Trump administration argued in a court filing that pausing construction would undermine national security, citing a Secret Service declaration warning that halting work would leave the site unable to meet ‘safety and security requirements’ necessary to protect President Donald Trump.

The declaration said the East Wing, demolished in October and now undergoing below-grade work, could not be left unfinished without compromising essential security measures.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued last week to stop the project, arguing the government had to follow federal review procedures before any irreversible work began.

The group said the proposed 90,000-square-foot addition, now estimated at more than $300 million, would overwhelm the Executive Residence and permanently alter the White House’s historic design.

The administration countered that the lawsuit was premature, noting regulatory reviews were still coming and above-grade construction was not scheduled to begin until April 2026.

The National Trust said early intervention was necessary, citing warnings from architectural historians who said the ballroom would mark the most significant exterior change to the White House in more than 80 years.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.

There’s a year-end rush in all aspects of life.

Businesses try to run up profits in December. Supervisors want to finish employee reviews. Professors must grade exams.

Congress is no different.

There’s always a race to the finish line in December on Capitol Hill. 

This year’s adventure is health care. But it’s a practical impossibility that Congress can actually make law on health care before the calendar flips. Premium spikes for 24 million Americans loom on January 1st. Congress tried — kinda — to address this problem. But not really.

So, if you’re that professor handing out the grades at the end of the semester, prepare to flunk some pupils, if not the entire Congressional student body.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., hermetically sealed any possibility of addressing health care in 2025 on Tuesday afternoon.

‘We’re not going to pass anything by the end of this week. But I do think there is a potential pathway in January if Democrats are willing to come to the table,’ said Thune.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., rapidly assembled a bill to allow groups of people – like a bunch of small businesses or a coalition of carpenters – to purchase what they call ‘association’ health plans. In other words, this alliance of people would suddenly have ‘buying power’ if they operate as a team. So if they purchase a set of plans as an ‘association,’ that would defray the cost.

‘This is going to be a great piece of legislation that everybody will unite around,’ said Johnson.

But many Republicans groused privately that it’s one thing to do ‘a health care bill.’ It’s another thing to actually short-circuit the astronomical leap in premiums which hit on January 1.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., spoke frankly about simply re-upping the existing subsidies.

‘We need to do deeper fixes. This is throwing good money after bad. There is some truth to that. But we have constituents. They’re going to have their premiums go up. That doesn’t help them. That’s why I think we need a temporary extension,’ said Bacon.

Many conservatives adamantly oppose continuing the subsidies. Even if that would help their constituents.

But Bacon addresses the realpolitik of the moment. 

‘It’s not our fault that these things are skyrocketing. But we are in charge. When you’re in charge, you’ve got to deal with it,’ said Bacon. ‘They’re going to have to find some compromise.’

A Christmas Congressional crunch often compels lawmakers to solve big legislative headaches before the holidays.

‘What intensifies the pressure is January 1st is coming,’ said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. ‘It’s having a huge impact on people. I think that is definitely a forcing mechanism.’

The push from Democrats — and some vulnerable Republicans — was to renew the subsidies.

‘I don’t understand why we can’t just do a clean extension of what we just had in place earlier this year,’ said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. ‘I think that is the easiest and most accessible, no nonsense thing for us to do. Especially as the year is coming to an end.’

But that wouldn’t fly with conservative Republicans.

‘I pity the Republican that has to explain why they would propagate or perpetuate a fraud-ridden subsidy from the COVID-era to prop up a failed health care program,’ said House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas. 

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., also opposes extending Obamacare help. But he worries what voters will think of Republicans if the party doesn’t address health care costs. 

‘I think that we fail the American people. We fail our base. We fail the Republican Party. Before I got up here, I was frustrated the Republicans didn’t repeal Obamacare,’ said Burlison. 

‘Repealing Obamacare’ probably won’t happen. That’s because the GOP has tried to unwind the measure since Democrats passed the first versions of it in late 2009. That’s why even through everyone was talking about health care on Capitol Hill, most were skeptical that lawmakers could solve this in a matter of days.

Despite possible Christmas magic.

And even as Thune punted health care into 2026, the House still nibbled around the edges. Critics argued this was only so House Republicans could inoculate themselves from denunciations that they did nothing on health care.

On Tuesday morning, Johnson nixed an idea from GOP moderates for a temporary extension of expiring Obamacare subsidies because it didn’t comply with Congressional budgetary rules.

But by afternoon, Johnson reversed himself to entertain another plan backed by Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y. 

Rather than simply extending federal Obamacare subsidies on an interim basis — which means that insurance companies receive the money — LaLota’s idea provides a two-year tax deduction for those who previously received the Obamacare aid.

President Trump said he would not sign a bill which continued to send money to the insurance companies. So the revamped approach cuts out insurance companies from the equation and policyholders score the tax relief.

‘There’s a real possibility they’ll get a vote on it,’ said Johnson. ‘I’ve tried everything I can to get them that vote on the floor.’

But a roll call vote is a far cry from an actual fix. And it’s uncertain that the House would adopt any amendment and copy it onto the underlying GOP health care bill.

However, a vote on the amendment could give Republicans from swing districts a fig leaf to say they tried to defuse the health care premium crisis. And it’s still unclear if voters might blame Republicans for not addressing health care — now that Democrats copied that issue onto the fall government funding fight.

Health care will be a major issue in the 2026 midterms.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. appeared skeptical that Congress could address the skyrocketing premiums in the near year.

‘You can’t do it after January 1st,’ said Schumer. ‘It’s expired already. It’s not the same as it was before. Once it expires, the toothpaste is out of the tube. 

Schumer also refused to commit to deploying the same maneuver about health care as the next government funding deadline approaches on January 30.

In short, Congress isn’t going to solve health care by Christmas.

But perhaps by Groundhog Day?

If that’s the case, any discussion about health care tied to Groundhog Day, probably resembles, well, Groundhog Day.