After meeting with President Donald Trump, Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said Friday that Venezuela will hold ‘free and fair’ elections ‘eventually’ as Nicolás Maduro’s vice president Delcy Rodriguez continues to rule the country after his capture. 

Machado did not offer a timeline for how long the current interim government would be allowed to rule, only that elections would happen ‘as soon as possible.’

‘I am profoundly, profoundly confident that we will have an orderly transition.’

Speaking at a news conference hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, Machado said Venezuela is taking ‘the first steps of a true transition to democracy,’ but stressed that dismantling the country’s repression apparatus must come before any credible election can be held.

‘We are facing a very complex and delicate process,’ Machado said. ‘Eventually we will have free and fair elections,’ she added, while emphasizing that security, rule of law and the release of political prisoners must come first.

Machado rejected the idea that Venezuela’s constitutional election timelines could be applied immediately, arguing that years of repression have hollowed out democratic institutions. She said hundreds of political prisoners remain unaccounted for and warned that fear and coercion are still widespread inside the country.

‘The fact that you are not in a prison doesn’t mean that you are free,’ she said, citing restrictions on speech, movement and political organizing.

Her comments come after the Trump administration faces growing scrutiny from critics over the lack of a clear electoral roadmap following the Jan. 3 operation that led to the removal of longtime strongman Maduro. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described a three-phase U.S. plan — stabilization, recovery and transition — but acknowledged that the final phase remains undefined.

During her Washington visit, Machado met privately with Trump and praised his role in pressuring Maduro’s government. She said the president told her he cares deeply about the Venezuelan people and their future.

Machado also presented Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize medal, a symbolic gesture toward a president who has long coveted the award. She described Trump’s actions on Venezuela as courageous and said U.S. support has given Venezuelans renewed hope after years of repression and economic collapse. The Nobel committee said in a statement that a ‘laureate cannot share the prize with others, nor transfer it once it has been announced.’

‘The decision is final and applies for all time.’

Despite her praise for Trump, questions remain over Washington’s posture toward Venezuela’s interim leadership. Trump has publicly spoken positively about Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president who is now playing a central role in the transitional government — a stance that has unsettled some opposition supporters.

Machado sought to downplay the appearance of competition between herself and Rodríguez for the U.S. president’s support.

‘This has nothing to do with a tension or decision between Delcy Rodríguez and myself,’ Machado said when asked about Trump’s openness to working with the interim government. ‘This is about a criminal structure that is a regime and the mandate of the Venezuelan people.’

Trump has spoken positively about Rodríguez’s role in the transition and suggested he’d be open to meeting with her. On Thursday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe was in Venezuela meeting with Rodríguez.

Trump recently called Machado a ‘very fine woman’ with whom he has ‘mutual respect,’ after saying Jan. 3 that Machado ‘doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country’ to rule. 

Machado called Rodríguezr ‘a communist’ and ‘the main ally and representation of the Russian regime, the Chinese and the Iranians,’ while arguing that Rodríguez ‘does not represent the Venezuelan people’ or the armed forces.

Machado said the current phase of the transition remains unstable, with elements of the former regime still being forced to dismantle systems of repression, including intelligence units and detention centers. Only after those structures are neutralized, she said, can Venezuela begin rebuilding democratic institutions and organizing legitimate elections.

She also stressed that future elections must include Venezuelans living abroad, noting that millions were barred from voting in past contests.

‘Every single Venezuelan, living in Venezuela or abroad, should have the right to vote,’ Machado said.

Trump has previously questioned whether Machado has sufficient support inside Venezuela to govern, backed by a U.S. CIA report on the matte, a remark she did not directly address during her public remarks. Instead, she framed the transition as a collective effort driven by popular will rather than individual leadership.

‘This is not about me,’ Machado said. ‘It is about the will of the Venezuelan people.’

For now, she said, the priority remains security.

‘We understand the urgency,’ Machado said. ‘But without dismantling terror, there can be no real democracy.’

The White House has said the United States intends to play a hands-on role during Venezuela’s transition, arguing it has significant leverage over interim authorities in Caracas. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week the administration believes it has ‘maximum leverage’ over Venezuela’s interim leadership, including influence over economic and security decisions as the transition unfolds.

After the Maduro capture, Trump said the U.S. would essentially run Venezuela. ‘We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

On Machado, Trump initially expressed skepticism. ‘I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country.’ A source told Fox News Digital there was concern among senior officials even prior to the Venezuela operation that Machado ‘lacked the necessary support in Venezuela if Maduro was to be removed.’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the administration envisions a phased approach to Venezuela’s transition — beginning with stabilization, followed by recovery and then a political transition. Rubio acknowledged that while elections are the end goal, they must come after security conditions improve and democratic institutions are rebuilt. 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

The bipartisan push for sanctions against Russia has, for several months, ebbed and flowed on waves of speculation about whether legislation would actually get a vote.

A signal or suggestion of support from President Donald Trump would often push the bill from Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., closer to fruition, only to be swept back into churning, murky waters with no clear path on when or if the package would make its way to the president’s desk.

Now, Trump has given Graham the ‘greenlight’ to move ahead with his long-simmering sanctions package as peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine continue to simmer in the background.

Graham told Fox News Digital that this time around, he believed the bill would actually get a shot.

‘It’s never going back on the shelf because President Trump believes he needs it,’ Graham said. ‘I think he needs it.’

But it has been over a week since Graham announced the president backed the package, and so far, it has yet to make it to the floor in the upper chamber. Lawmakers are also out this week and are set to return to Washington, D.C., next week with the primary objective of preventing a partial government shutdown.

Still, the bipartisan duo has been tweaking the legislation over the last several months, but the core objective would be to slap eye-popping tariffs onto countries buying energy products from Moscow.

The intent is to cripple Russia’s war machine by imposing duties on oil, gas, uranium and other exports, largely purchased by China and India, which account for nearly three-quarters of Moscow’s energy business.

The package has been on the back burner as the Trump administration works to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The latest iteration of that agreement generally included provisions that would have required Ukraine to give up territory to Russia, a non-starter for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Trump told Reuters during an interview published last week that it was Zelenskyy holding up negotiations toward a peace deal and contended that Russian President Vladimir Putin was ‘ready to make a deal,’ while Ukraine was ‘less ready to make a deal.’

While the package hasn’t dislodged itself onto the floor in the upper chamber, a White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital that Trump supports the legislation.

But one issue that threatens to trip up the process once more is where the package actually starts in Congress.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., doubled down on his position that any Russia sanctions package, despite being labored on in the Senate for several months, should start in the House, given the budgetary impact it could have.

That would require buy-in from House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to either replicate Graham and Blumenthal’s proposal, or craft their own. Then it would need to hit the House floor, which could take longer than lawmakers in the upper chamber are willing to wait.

On whether Johnson said he would put it on the floor, Thune said, ‘He hasn’t.’

‘But my guess is that if it’s something that, you know, the White House — it’s important to them, it’s a priority, particularly dealing with Russia and Ukraine, I would assume that they would try and do that,’ he said.

That’s where there’s a disconnect.

Johnson supports Russia sanctions but has said on multiple occasions that he believes a sanctions bill should originate in the Senate.

He has argued that starting the legislation in the House would drastically slow down its progress, given the numerous committees any package would have to pass through before ever hitting the floor for a vote.

Graham believed that the ‘sense of urgency now is the greatest it’s been’ and noted that he has told Thune that he wants the legislation to start in the Senate, where it has over 80 co-sponsors.

‘This is where the idea came from, get a big bipartisan vote and try to get President Trump to use these tools coming from the Congress so we can end this bloodbath,’ Graham said.

‘Now, in a normal world it would, but I just think the momentum is in the Senate,’ he continued. ‘We can take a shell — It’s not that hard. I mean, I’ve been working my a– [off] on this thing for over a year, or whatever how long it’s been.’

Blumenthal told Fox News Digital that he had been speaking with his colleagues in the lower chamber and added that there’s ‘no reason’ that the package should get bogged down or tripped up in the House.

Blumenthal and Graham view their sanctions push as providing Trump with another weapon to force Putin to the negotiating table.

He argued that ‘security is the linchpin here, but forcing Putin to come to the table also involves economic pressure, and ultimately, we want peace, and that will involve both economic and military security.’

‘I feel very, very encouraged, because I think that a lot is coming together,’ Blumenthal said.

Donald Trump made ‘you’re fired’ a national catchphrase from his TV show ‘The Apprentice.’ Now the power of the president to unilaterally decide who can continue to serve in key government positions will be tested Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, in another major case over leadership removals from independent agencies.

At the center of the latest constitutional showdown is Lisa Cook, who serves precariously on the Federal Reserve’s powerful Board of Governors.

Trump claims broad authority to force Cook from her leadership position on the central bank, free from judicial review, with his administration alleging she committed private mortgage fraud.

Oral arguments will be conducted by the nine justices, who will hear separately from lawyers representing Cook and the Justice Department.

As the elected head of the government, Trump believes federal law allows him unqualified discretion to fire ‘for cause’ any officer on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). 

But Cook will tell the court the Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 as a wholly independent entity, to insulate it from political influence, and from any one president ‘stacking the deck’ with their own nominees.

She claims to be a political pawn in Trump’s very public efforts to dictate the Federal Reserve’s economic policies, by exploiting what she calls ‘manufactured charges’ of wrongdoing.

This appeal comes as Trump’s feud with the Fed has expanded, after its chairman, Jerome Powell, disclosed recently the agency was subpoenaed by the Justice Department for allegations he lied to Congress about a controversial multimillion-dollar renovation of the agency’s headquarters.

The high court will have at least four opportunities this term to define the limits of Trump’s aggressive view of his authority, including import tariffs and birthright citizenship.

‘A big fraction of the Supreme Court’s docket will present the question, can President Trump do: fill in the blank? And that could be imposed tariffs. Fire board members. Remove illegal aliens,’ said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney and leading appellate attorney. ‘Trump is pushing at every limit and the Supreme Court this term is going to be telling us whether he’s exceeded those limits. That is, I think, going to the story of so much of what the Supreme Court is deciding this term.’   

The Issues

The conservative court has allowed much of President Trump’s challenged executive actions to be enforced at least temporarily – and will now decide whether the Fed’s special mandate statutorily protects its governing members from getting ousted.

The justices last month heard arguments in a separate case, on Trump’s efforts to remove Democrat-appointed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which like the Fed is a congressionally created independent, multi-member regulatory agency.

The 6-3 conservative majority in that petition appeared ready to rule for the president when it involves semi-autonomous agencies like the FTC.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor at argument accused the administration of trying to ‘destroy the structure of government.’

But Justice Neil Gorsuch countered that when it comes to agencies like the FTC, ‘there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.’

Both Slaughter and Cook were named to their current staggered terms by former President Joe Biden, but Slaughter and another Democratic-appointed member are now not allowed to continue serving while their lawsuits are decided.

In the Cook case, lower courts ruled she did not receive due process when the president tried to fire her.

The current posture of the case is whether Trump can remove Cook — at least temporarily — while the dispute continues to play out on the merits. The ‘for cause’ removal restriction’s constitutionality is not directly before the justices.

A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction against the administration, which then sought relief from the Supreme Court on the limited enforcement issue.

The nine-member bench now has the option of ruling narrowly on the injunction question — which would throw the case back to the district court. Or the high court could go ahead and decide the larger constitutional matters.

One key argument topic could center on whether the Federal Reserve has some administrative nexus to the executive branch, which could put it at least under limited Trump control.

Though its leaders are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the seven-member board is considered an independent government agency, since its monetary policy decisions do not need presidential or legislative approval. But the agency does provide Congress with regular reports on its work.

It also does not receive any federal funding, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

Under law, the Federal Reserve’s leadership has a three-fold mandate: ‘maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.’

The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the federal government, but set up like private corporations, and regionally located across the country.

The justices, in an unsigned order in a separate case in 2025, had suggested the Fed operates differently from other independent federal boards, since it is not funded by Congress through normal appropriations, but uses interest on securities the bank owns and acquired through open market operations.

‘The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,’ said the Supreme Court in May 2025.

After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve hands the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

Federal feud

Trump repeatedly has blasted Powell and the Federal Reserve over reluctance to lower benchmark interest rates as aggressively as the president wants, in a fundamental disagreement over prudent ways to stimulate the national economy.

Like Cook, Powell in an extraordinary video statement Sunday accused the president of investigating him as ‘pretexts’ for ‘political pressure or intimidation.’

‘The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,’ he said.

Trump on Tuesday called Powell ‘either incompetent or crooked.’

Powell’s term as chairman ends in May, but he has the option of remaining on the Board for another two years. Trump has been conducting a very transparent interview campaign with candidates for Powell’s successor to lead the central bank.

The high court will try to cast all the Washington drama aside and focus on what shapes up as a major test of executive and judicial power.

The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) says the president can only remove members of the Fed board and FOMC ‘for cause.’ The exact parameters of that standard were not spelled out in the original law, and never fully tested in the courts.

Cook — appointed for a 14-year term by Biden in 2023 — will remain on the job at least until the court decides the current legal questions.

No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the law’s 112-year history.

‘Put simply, the president may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself— and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,’ said Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the administration’s appeal.

The Justice Department will argue that removal protection power is discretionary and unenforceable.

But Cook’s lawyers counter, ‘Granting that relief would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history, and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the President’s will.’

The court’s decision to take up the case comes months after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction last month blocking Trump from firing Cook from the Fed while the case continued to play out in court.’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 in September 2025 to deny Trump’s request for intervention, prompting the administration to make its case to the Supreme Court for emergency review.

The Stakes

The Supreme Court update comes as Trump has for months pressured the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates, in a bid to help spur the nation’s economic growth.

But his attempt to fire Cook for alleged mortgage fraud violations, which she has denied, has teed up a first-of-its-kind judicial clash that could have profound impacts on the Fed itself, and the Supreme Court’s review authority.

She strongly denies accusations of falsely claiming two homes in Georgia and Michigan as her primary residence to secure better mortgage terms. She has not been charged with any crime.

Cook’s legal team — featuring prominent conservative attorney and former Justice Scalia law clerk Paul Clement — sued Trump in late August 2025 for his attempt to fire her, arguing it violated her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the FRA.

She has not been charged with any criminal act.

The next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting is scheduled for Jan. 27–28, with an expected interest rate decision. Both Powell and Cook are each set to participate.

Financial markets, private banks, businesses and investors will be closely watching what the Supreme Court does in the Federal Reserve dispute, and a separate pending appeal over Trump’s sweeping reciprocal global tariffs.

A written ruling in that import tax case, which was argued by the justices in November, could come at any time.

The Fed case is Trump v. Cook (25a312). A decision there could come relatively quickly within weeks, or potentially as late as June or early July.

A group of House Democrats is moving to block President Donald Trump from acquiring Greenland in direct defiance of one of the commander in chief’s main foreign policy goals.

Rep. Gabe Amo, D-R.I., announced late Sunday that he introduced a bill to prevent Trump from using federal dollars to buy Greenland.

The legislation already has more than 20 House Democratic co-sponsors and is likely to get more as the week progresses.

‘Greenland is not for sale, no matter what Trump says. That’s why I led 21 [House Democrats] in introducing the NO NATO for Purchase Act to make sure your taxpayer dollars aren’t spent on Trump’s next property boondoggle,’ Amo wrote on X.

A publicly available summary of his bill stated its purpose as ‘to prohibit actions or expenditure of funds to purchase a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member country or NATO-protected territory.’

It comes as Trump and his allies continue to insist that getting Greenland under U.S. rule is critical to enhancing national security.

Trump has pushed to acquire Greenland, a territory of Denmark, since his first White House term.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with officials from Greenland and Denmark last week, but it appears that little progress has been made on either side.

‘The discussions focused on how to ensure the long-term security in Greenland. And here, our perspectives continue to differ, I must say. The president has made his view clear. And we have a different position,’ Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters afterward.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers — consisting mainly of Democrats — embarked on a congressional delegation trip to Denmark over the weekend to meet with officials there.

Trump himself posted on Truth Social on Sunday night, ‘NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland.’ Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!’

The Trump administration has made clear that it hopes to purchase Greenland from Denmark, but the president himself has not ruled out using military force either.

The idea of a military invasion of Greenland has rattled lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with foreign relations hawks arguing it would be a violation of NATO’s Article V by one of the organization’s own leading members.

House Democrats’ bill is not likely to be taken up by the House, however, nor would it be likely to pass if it were.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for a response to the legislation.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) on Monday withdrew an invitation for Iran’s foreign minister to attend the Davos summit in Switzerland after an advocacy group urged it to bar Iranian regime officials amid nationwide anti-government protests that have left thousands dead.

In a post on X, the WEF confirmed that Abbas Araghchi would not be permitted to attend the five-day event.

‘Although he was invited last fall, the tragic loss of lives of civilians in Iran over the past few weeks means that it is not right for the Iranian government to be represented at Davos this year,’ the organization said. 

The announcement comes after the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) sent a letter to WEF President Børge Brende on Friday, urging him to rescind the invitation and bar Iranian regime officials from attending amid a brutal crackdown on civilians.

UANI CEO Ambassador Mark Wallace welcomed the decision, telling Fox News Digital in a statement after Araghchi’s invitation was withdrawn: ‘UANI commends the World Economic Forum for revoking the invitation of Iran’s Foreign Minister from this year’s gathering in Davos. Iranian regime representatives should not be platformed at international events given their crimes against the Iranian people and their long history of supporting terrorism.’

Iran is currently facing nationwide anti-government protests that have drawn a violent response from security forces and placed growing pressure on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), which tracks human rights violations in Iran, said on Sunday that nationwide protests continued into the 22nd day as President Donald Trump weighs possible U.S. military action.

The group’s aggregated figures showed 624 recorded protests, the arrest of at least 24,669 people and the confirmed deaths of 3,919 individuals.

HRANA said 3,685 of those killed were protesters, including 25 children under the age of 18.

Nearly 9,000 deaths remain under investigation.

White House press secretary Karoline Levitt said at a press briefing last week that the Trump administration was closely watching the situation in Iran.

‘All options remain on the table for the president,’ she told reporters.