In a move that is already reshaping global energy and geopolitical conversations, United States President Donald Trump has announced that Venezuela will transfer between 30 million and 50 million barrels of crude oil to the United States.
The development marks one of the most significant shifts in U.S.–Venezuela relations in decades and has triggered intense debate over energy security, international law, and the future of Venezuela’s oil sector.
According to the announcement, the oil will be shipped to the United States and sold at prevailing market prices, with the proceeds to be managed under the authority of the U.S. government. President Trump stated that the funds generated from the sale would be used in ways that benefit both the American people and Venezuelans, framing the arrangement as a strategic and humanitarian measure.
Recall that US carried out airstrikes across Venezuela overnight last Friday, with explosions rocking the capital, Caracas, before dawn.
Shortly afterwards, Donald Trump announced that US forces had captured the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, and flown them out of the country.
Major cases
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has had to deal with a series of cases involving challenges to the actions of President Donald Trump and his administration since he returned to office in January 2025.
These cases have involved the U.S. Federal Reserve, tariffs, immigration policy, domestic troop deployment, birthright citizenship, transgender rights, firings of federal workers and agency officials, dismantling the Education Department, cuts to teacher training and medical research grants, foreign aid and other matters.
He is serving a 27-year sentence
Here is a look at some of these cases.
TRUMP TARIFFS
The justices raised doubts during arguments on November 5 over the legality of Trump's sweeping tariffs in a case with implications for the global economy that marks a major test of Trump's powers.
Conservative and liberal justices alike sharply questioned the lawyer representing Trump's administration about whether a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies gave Trump the power he claimed to impose tariffs or whether the president had intruded on the powers of Congress.
But some of the conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case.
Lower courts ruled that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs, which were challenged by various businesses and 12 U.S. states. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
CHICAGO-AREA TROOP DEPLOYMENT
The court on December 23 refused to let Trump send National Guard troops to the Chicago area as the president expands the use of the military for domestic purposes in a growing number of Democratic-led jurisdictions, a policy critics call an effort to punish adversaries and stifle dissent.
The justices let stand for the time being U.S. District Judge April Perry's order blocking the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops in a legal challenge brought by Illinois officials and local leaders.
The U.S. Justice Department had sought to allow the deployment while the case proceeds.
FIRING FED GOVERNOR
The justices will hear arguments on January 21 over Trump's attempt to remove, opens new tab Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a major legal battle over the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official as he challenges the central bank's independence.
The court declined to immediately decide a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge's order that temporarily blocked Trump from removing Cook.
In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions to shield the Central Bank from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only "for cause," though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal.
Trump claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FIRING
The court's conservative justices signaled they will uphold the legality of Trump's firing of a Federal Trade Commission member and give a historic boost to presidential power while also imperiling a 90-year-old legal precedent.
The court heard arguments on December 8 in the Justice Department's appeal of a lower court's decision that the Republican president exceeded his authority when he moved to dismiss Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter in March before her term was set to expire.
The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the Trump administration's arguments that tenure protections given by Congress to the heads of independent agencies unlawfully encroached on presidential power under the U.S. Constitution.
The court let Trump remove Slaughter while the case played out. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE FIRING
The court on November 26 postponed a decision on whether to let Trump remove the government's top copyright official, leaving her in place for the time being in the latest battle over his targeting of federal officials. The justices declined to immediately resolve the Justice Department's request to lift a lower court's ruling that had blocked Trump's firing of Shira Perlmutter as the U.S. register of copyrights and U.S. Copyright Office director while her legal challenge proceeds.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
The court has agreed to decide the legality of Trump's directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, a contentious part of his efforts to curb immigration and a step that would alter how a 19th century constitutional provision has long been understood.
A lower court blocked Trump's executive order that told U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.
That court ruled that Trump's policy violated the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and a federal law codifying birthright citizenship rights in a class-action lawsuit by parents and children whose citizenship is threatened by the directive.
No date has been set for arguments in the case.
At an earlier phase of the case, the Supreme Court on June 27 curbed the power, opens new tab of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.
IMMIGRATION RAIDS
The court on September 8 backed Trump's hardline approach toward immigration by letting federal agents proceed with raids in Southern California targeting people for deportation based on their race or language.
It granted a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge's order temporarily barring agents from stopping or detaining people without "reasonable suspicion" they are in the country illegally, by relying on race or ethnicity, or if they speak Spanish or English with an accent, among other factors. U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong had found on July 11 that the administration's actions likely violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
PROTECTED STATUS FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS
The court on October 3 again cleared the way for the administration to revoke a temporary legal protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the United States, backing a key Trump priority as he pursues a policy of mass deportations. It granted the administration's request to put on hold U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's ruling that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to end the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, granted to the migrants under Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while litigation proceeds.
The TPS program is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law for countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes, giving recipients living in the United States deportation protection and access to work permits.
REVOKING IMMIGRATION 'PAROLE'
The court on May 30 let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States.
The court put on hold U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while a legal challenge plays out.
Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under U.S. law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States.
DEPORTATION OF VENEZUELANS
The court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process.
The justices granted a request by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the migrants to maintain the halt on the removals for now.
The court on April 19 had ordered a temporary stop to the administration's deportations of dozens of migrants being held at a detention center in Texas.
The Supreme Court placed limits on April 7 on how deportations under the Alien Enemies Act may occur even as the legality of that law's use for this purpose is being contested.
The administration has alleged that the Venezuelans were members of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang.
THIRD COUNTRY' DEPORTATIONS
The court on June 23 cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face.
The court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out.
Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had found that the administration's policy likely violates due process requirements under the Constitution.
The justices on July 3 lifted limits Murphy had imposed to protect eight men who the administration sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan as part of its policy of deportations to "third countries."
WRONGLY DEPORTED SALVADORAN MAN
The court on April 10 directed the administration to facilitate the return to the United States of a Salvadoran man who the U.S. government has acknowledged was deported in error to El Salvador.
The Justice Department had asked the justices to throw out an April 4 order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the administration to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland and whose wife and young child are U.S. citizens.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on June 6 that Abrego had been flown back to the United States and would face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. Abrego pleaded not guilty.
PASSPORTS FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE
The court on November 6 allowed the administration to bar applicants for U.S. passports from designating the sex reflecting their gender identities on the document, part of Trump's crackdown on the rights of transgender Americans.
It granted the Justice Department's request to lift a judge's order that had blocked the policy requiring passports to correspond only to a person's sex assigned at birth, while a class action lawsuit challenging the administration's action plays out. U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick had blocked the policy as violating the Constitution's equal protection promise.
TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN
The court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, letting the armed forces discharge thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out.
The court granted the Justice Department's request to lift U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle's nationwide order blocking the military from carrying out Trump's policy. Settle had found that Trump's order likely violates the Constitution's right to equal protection under the law.
MASS FEDERAL LAYOFFS
The justices on July 8 cleared the way for the administration to pursue mass government job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies. At the administration's request, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds.
Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. Illston wrote that Trump had exceeded his authority.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONERS
The court on July 23 let Trump remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog - Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. - boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent of presidential control.
It lifted U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Biden while a legal challenge proceeds.
LABOR BOARD OFFICIALS
The court on May 22 allowed Trump to keep two Democratic members of federal labor boards away from their posts while their challenge to his firing of them proceeds.
The court temporarily blocked orders by two separate judges that had shielded Cathy Harris from being dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from being removed from the National Labor Relations Board before their terms expire.
Both were appointed by Biden.
FIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
The justices on April 8 blocked a judge's order for Trump's administration to rehire thousands of fired employees. The court put on hold U.S. Judge William Alsup's March 13 injunction requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of recently hired probationary employees while litigation challenging the legality of the dismissals continues.
Alsup's ruling had applied to probationary employees at the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury.
FOREIGN AID CUTS
The court on September 26 allowed Trump to withhold about $4 billion in foreign aid, opens new tab authorized by Congress for the current fiscal year as he pursues his "America First" agenda.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.
PAYMENT TO FOREIGN AID GROUPS
The justices on March 5 declined to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government as he moves to pull the plug on American humanitarian projects around the world.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISMANTLING
The court on July 14 cleared the way for the administration to dismantle the Department of Education, part of Trump's bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states.
The justices lifted U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 department workers affected by mass layoffs and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies.
A legal challenge is continuing to play out.
MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
The court on August 21 let the administration proceed with sweeping cuts to National Institutes of Health grants for research related to racial minorities or LGBT people, part of Trump's crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and transgender identity.
TEACHER TRAINING GRANTS
The justices on April 4 let Trump's administration proceed with millions of dollars of cuts to teacher training grants - part of his crackdown on diversity initiatives.
SOCIAL SECURITY DATA
The court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems.
DOGE TRANSPARENCY
The justices on June 6 extended their block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog advocacy group that sought details on its operations.
The court on May 23 had issued a temporary pause.
Reporting by John Kruzel in Washington and Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Source: Reuters
No comments:
Post a Comment