Venezuela’s former Vice President Delcy Rodríguez is now president of the country, U.S. President Donald Trump said, hours after a U.S. military operation captured former leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Jan. 3.

“She was just sworn in, but she was, as you know, picked by Maduro,” Trump said.

He said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “is working on that directly. Just had a conversation with her, and she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again. Very simple.”

The overnight surprise attack resulted in Maduro and Flores being shipped to New York to face charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

Courtesy of Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times, here is what we know about Rodríguez.

Who Is Rodríguez?

Rodríguez was born and raised in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, on May 18, 1969.

​The 56-year-old leader graduated from Universidad Central de Venezuela, became a lawyer, and quickly rose through the political system in the past decade.

Rodríguez served as the Communication and Information Minister in 2013 before she pivoted to a Foreign Ministry position from 2014 to 2017 and eventually served as the head of the Constituent Assembly, which expanded Maduro’s powers.

Vice Presidency

Maduro selected Rodríguez as his vice president in June 2018, describing her as “a young woman, brave, seasoned, daughter of a martyr, revolutionary, and tested in a thousand battles.”

In August 2024, Maduro assigned Rodríguez to manage sanctions on oil between the United States and Venezuela.

Acting Leader

Trump announced from Mar-a-Lago on Jan. 3 that the United States will “run” Venezuela until a peaceful transition can be made, while saying that Rodríguez has agreed to work with the United States after being “sworn in” as Venezuela’s new president.

Trump said Rodríguez had spoken with Rubio but didn’t provide details on how the United States would work with Rodríguez to run the country.

“She really doesn’t have a choice,” Trump said.

“We’re going to have this done right. We’re not going to just do this with Maduro, then leave like everybody else, leave and say, ‘Let it go to hell.’ If we just left, it has zero chance of ever coming back.

“We‘ll run it properly. We’ll run it professionally. We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions and billions of dollars and take out money, use that money in Venezuela. And the biggest beneficiary going to be the people of Venezuela.”

In an address broadcast on state television shortly after Trump’s briefing, Rodríguez – who was identified as vice president by a ticker at the bottom of the screen – did not address Trump’s claims that she was now acting president. Instead, she demanded that the United States free Maduro, who she called the country’s rightful leader.

“Here, we have a government with clarity, and I repeat and repeat again … we are willing to have respectful relations,” Rodríguez said.

“It is the only thing we will accept for a type of relationship after having [been] attacked.”

Maduro’s Exit Plan

Before Maduro was captured, he floated the idea of staying in office for three more years before having Rodríguez take over and finish his term through January 2031.

The proposal was rejected by the White House, which openly questioned the legitimacy of Venezuela’s 2024 election and accused Maduro of overseeing a narco-terrorist state.

A fascinating new report by Bloomberg on Sunday has observed a huge uptick in Chinese social media users weighing in on the decades-long Taiwan independence crisis, in relation to President Trump’s weekend overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“Trump’s operation against the Venezuelan strongman shot to the top of China’s Weibo late Saturday, with the topic gaining some 440 million views on the X-like platform,” Bloomberg reports. “Many commentators were quick to make comparisons between the fate of the South American nation and that of the self-ruled democracy Beijing has vowed to claim.”

Like the long building military showdown between the United States and Venezuela, Taiwan has been a flashpoint in mainland China’s shadow. It is ‘small’ in comparison with China’s population and military might. But the situation is an inversion, with Washington having long armed Taiwan to the teeth.

This fact is obvious enough to spark an avalanche of commentary, with Bloomberg citing one Weibo post and thread (among many) which said “I suggest using the same method to reclaim Taiwan in the future” – in reference to Beijing’s designs on ‘reuniting’ the self-ruled island with the mainland.

Another user said, “The US imperialists’ lightning raid on Venezuela to capture Maduro and his wife provides a perfect blueprint for our military to launch a surprise attack on Frog Island and seize [Taiwanese President] Lai Ching-te” – which utilized a popular derogatory term for Taiwan.

China has joined Russia in demanding the immediate release of Maduro, with the foreign ministry staying it was “deeply shocked” by the “blatant use of force against a sovereign state.”

The same report features the perspective of former diplomat Ryan Hass:

“I don’t expect today’s events in Venezuela will dramatically shift Beijing’s calculus on Taiwan,” Ryan Hass, a former US diplomat and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote on X. “Beijing hasn’t refrained from kinetic or other actions on Taiwan out of deference to international law and norms.”

“Privately, I expect Beijing will emphasize to Washington that it expects to be given the same latitude for great power exemptions to international law that the US takes for itself,” he added, citing China’s operations in the South China Sea, where it has territorial disputes with US allies and other regional neighbors.

Indeed under Trump it is a new day. Not only does he “speak the truth out loud” – no longer merely hiding behind platitudes like “spreading democracy” in the name of the “rules-based order”, he unapologetically just invades countries he doesn’t like (as the foray into Caracas makes clear).

The US has long condemned Moscow of doing just this (in Ukraine, or in Georgia over a decade ago). The Kremlin has reacted this weekend to the Venezuela intervention by saying “just watch the double standards in motion.”

Beijing without doubt is signaling the same thing. It is asking essentially: if the US can do this in its own backyard (invade a small ‘nuisance’ country), then why can’t China do the same?

Time to watch the double standards in real time.

— Kirill Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) January 3, 2026

U.S. automakers are quietly pivoting back toward what they know makes money: large gasoline vehicles. Selling trucks and SUVs is now the fastest path to higher profits, especially as government pressure to push electric vehicles has weakened. Trying to maximize profits from gas cars while keeping pace in EV technology is proving extremely difficult, according to a new writeup from the Wall Street Journal.

Recent policy changes strongly favor gasoline models. Fuel-economy rules have been softened, penalties for missing targets have disappeared, EV tax credits have expired, and California can no longer impose its own emissions standards. EV momentum has cooled worldwide as well, with Europe, the U.K., and Canada also retreating from aggressive mandates. BloombergNEF projects U.S. EV sales will drop 24% in Q4 2025 from the year before.

Automakers are responding quickly. GM, Ford, and Stellantis have announced plans to emphasize gasoline vehicles, which deliver far better margins. Thousands of EV-factory jobs have been cut and several plants paused. As RBC’s Tom Narayan explains, “Even one quarter of mismatched production can result in billions of dollars of losses.”

Their caution is understandable. EV programs have been deeply unprofitable. Ford alone lost nearly $13 billion on EVs between 2021 and 2024, and now expects $19.5 billion in new charges, largely EV-related. Meanwhile, easing regulations are creating what Ford CEO Jim Farley calls a “multibillion-dollar opportunity over the next two years.” TD Cowen estimates profit gains of $4B for Ford, $3B for GM, and €1.4B for Stellantis from these regulatory shifts.

Publicly, the companies still claim commitment to EVs. GM CEO Mary Barra says “profitable electric-vehicle production” remains the firm’s goal, and Farley warns that Chinese rivals like BYD and Geely are the real competition. But reality is sobering: the Detroit Three together control less than 5% of global EV sales, while BYD, Geely, and Tesla hold nearly 40%.

WSJ writes that part of the problem is demand. Consumers have resisted expensive electric versions of large vehicles that don’t suit long-distance or commercial use. Ford now plans a smaller, cheaper electric pickup around $30,000 for 2027. GM is redesigning EVs to be lighter and more aerodynamic. Both companies are also trying to keep flexibility by producing EVs and gasoline cars in the same plants. As Barra put it, “we have the ability to flex back and forth between ICE and EVs.”

That flexibility, however, undermines efficiency. BloombergNEF’s Colin McKerracher argues that scale is essential for lowering battery costs, and John Murphy of Haig Partners notes that mixed production lines inevitably sacrifice efficiency.

Believing Detroit can dominate EVs now requires faith: that low-cost EVs can be built without massive scale, that U.S. firms can match the speed of Chinese rivals who release new models every 1.8 years versus 5.2 years for Western firms, and that Chinese automakers will stay out of the U.S. market indefinitely.

There is another path. Like U.S. oil companies that ignored renewables and doubled down on their most profitable business—with strong results—the Detroit automakers could lean into gasoline and hybrids. Hybrid demand is still growing and uses nearly the same supply chain as traditional vehicles. S&P Global Mobility expects global gasoline and hybrid sales to rise through at least 2032.

The danger is timing. The world could transition to EVs faster than expected, leaving U.S. automakers stuck behind. For now, though, profits from gas vehicles are simply too attractive to resist.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It can fairly be said that the most precarious jobs in the world are those of a golf ball collector at a driving range, a mascot at a Chuck E. Cheese, and a Trump Administration lawyer.

That was evident at the press conference yesterday as President Donald Trump blew apart the carefully constructed narrative presented earlier for the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. 

Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and General Dan Caine stayed on script and reinforced this narrative. Both repeatedly noted that this was an operation intended to bring two individuals to justice and that law enforcement personnel were part of the extraction team to place them into legal custody. Rubio was, again, particularly effective in emphasizing that Maduro was not the head of state but a criminal dictator who took control after losing democratic elections.

However, while noting the purpose of the capture, President Trump proceeded to declare that the United States would engage in nation-building to achieve lasting regime change. He stated that they would be running Venezuela to ensure a friendly government and the repayment of seized U.S. property dating back to the government of Hugo Chávez.

This city is full of self-proclaimed Trump whisperers who rarely score above random selection in their predictions. However, there are certain pronounced elements in Trump’s approach to such matters. First, he is the most transparent president in my lifetime with prolonged (at times excruciatingly long) press conferences and a brutal frankness about his motivations. Second, he is unabashedly and undeniably transactional in most of his dealings. He is not ashamed to state what he wants the country to get out of the deal.

In Venezuela, he wants a stable partner, and he wants oil.

Chávez and Maduro had implemented moronic socialist policies that reduced one of the most prosperous nations to an economic basket case. They brought in Cuban security thugs to help keep the population under repressive conditions, as a third fled to the United States and other countries.

After an extraordinary operation to capture Maduro, Trump was faced with socialist Maduro allies on every level of the government. He is not willing to allow those same regressive elements to reassert themselves.

The problem is that, if the purpose was regime change, this attack was an act of war, which is why Rubio struggled to bring the presser back to the law enforcement purpose. I have long criticized the erosion of the war declaration powers of Congress, including my representation of members of Congress in opposition to Obama’s Libyan war effort.

The fact, however, is that we lost that case. Trump knows that. Courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offensives against other nations. In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya’s capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress. They were also silent when Obama vaporized an American under this “kill list” policy without even a criminal charge. So please spare me the outrage now.

My strong preferences for congressional authorization and consultation are immaterial. The question I am asked as a legal analyst is whether this operation would be viewed as lawful. The answer remains yes.

The courts have previously upheld the authority of presidents to seize individuals abroad, including the purported heads of state. This case is actually stronger in many respects than the one involving Noriega. Maduro will now make the same failed arguments that Noriega raised. He should lose those challenges under existing precedent. If courts apply the same standards to Trump (which is often an uncertain proposition), Trump will win on the right to seize Maduro and bring him to justice.

But then, how about the other rationales rattled off at Mar-A-Lago? In my view, it will not matter. Here is why.

The immediate purpose and result of the operation was to capture Maduro and to bring him to face his indictment in New York. That is Noriega 2.0.

The Administration put him into custody at the time of extraction with law enforcement personnel and handed him over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Trump Administration can then argue that it had to deal with the aftermath of that operation and would not simply leave the country without a leader or stable government.

Trump emphasized that “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

I still do not like the import of those statements. Venezuelans must be in charge of their own country and our role, if any, must be to help them establish a democratic and stable government. Trump added that “We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind.”

The devil is in the details. Venezuelans must decide who has their best interests in mind, not the United States.

However, returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose.

Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.

He will leave it to his lawyers to make that case. It is not the case that some of us preferred, but it is the case that he wants to be made. He is not someone who can be scripted. It is his script and he is still likely to prevail in holding Maduro and his wife for trial.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino officially resigned from the bureau on Saturday, hours after President Donald Trump confirmed that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro had been taken into US custody. 

Responding to a post on X, Bongino praised Maduro’s capture, saying it was “a busy last day on the job.”

“Tomorrow I return to civilian life. It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump.”

Bongino said that it was “an honor of a lifetime” to work beside FBI Director Kash Patel, adding “See you on the other side.”

It was a busy last day on the job. This will be my last post on this account.
Tomorrow I return to civilian life. It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump.
It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve… https://t.co/ETUqiYXvLH

— Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) January 4, 2026

Bongino announced in mid-December that he would be leaving the FBI in January. 

In response President Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Dec. 17 that Bongino had done a “great job,” but “I think he wants to go back to his show,” referring to Bongino’s podcast. 

Patel also confirmed Bongino’s retirement announcement on X Saturday night – after having previously calling him “the best partner I could’ve asked for in helping restore this FBI.”

“He not only completed his mission—he far exceeded it. We will miss him but I’m thankful he accepted the call to serve.”

Dan is the best partner I could’ve asked for in helping restore this FBI. He brought critical reforms to make the organization more efficient, led the successful Summer Heat op, served as the people’s voice for transparency, and delivered major breakthroughs in long unsolved… https://t.co/o8wZOUnojP

— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) December 17, 2025

 As the Epoch Times notes further, Bongino highlighted some statistics of the FBI’s operations over the past year in a post on Dec. 30, 2025, noting the bureau had made more than 50,000 arrests—including more than 30,000 that were for violent crimes—had seized more than 2,000 kilograms (4,400 pounds) of fentanyl, and increased arrests for “Nihilistic Violent Extremism” by 490 percent.

The United States also saw a significant drop in the national murder rate over the past year, and the FBI located more than 6,000 child victims, an increase of 22 percent, Bongino added.

Bongino’s tenure at the FBI also saw some infighting with the Department of Justice, the bureau’s parent agency, over its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files after Bongino had spent considerable time on his podcast demanding answers about the now-deceased sex offender and his 2019 death, which was officially ruled a suicide.

Bongino wrote a post on X in late July 2025 that said the FBI was “committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations,” but that what he learned conducting investigations “into these aforementioned matters, has shocked me down to my core.”

“We cannot run a Republic like this. I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned,” Bongino said at the time, but did not elaborate.

Earlier that month, Trump had dismissed reports of friction between Bongino and others at the FBI and Justice Department over the release of the Epstein files, telling reporters on Air Force One that Bongino’s a “very good guy” and that “he’s in good shape.”

Authored by Juan Galt via BitcoinMagazine.com,

In a move that could shape corporate Bitcoin adoption, index provider MSCI is set to decide whether to exclude companies holding significant Bitcoin reserves from its global benchmarks. The outcome, due January 15, may influence billions in forced selling and set precedents for how Wall Street views Bitcoin as a treasury asset.

MSCI Inc., a New York-based publicly traded company listed on the NYSE with a market capitalization of $43.76 billion and a stock price of $565.68 as of January 2, is a key player in the investment world. It curates over 246,000 equity indexes daily, with more than $18.3 trillion in assets under management benchmarked to them. These indices serve as blueprints for funds and portfolios, helping investors gain exposure to specific market segments.

Unlike the NASDAQ, which operates as both a stock exchange where companies list and trade and a composite index tracking those listings, MSCI focuses solely on index creation. The S&P 500, managed by S&P Dow Jones Indices, is similarly an index but targets the 500 largest U.S. companies by market cap. MSCI’s offerings, such as the MSCI World Index covering developed markets, provide broader global and thematic coverage, influencing trillions in investment decisions.

The issue began on October 10, 2025, when MSCI issued a consultation proposal to exclude companies with 50% or more of their assets in digital assets like Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies from its Global Investable Market Indexes.

The rationale: such firms operate more like funds than traditional businesses.

The proposal named 39 companies, including Bitcoin holders like Strategy and Metaplanet. The announcement triggered an immediate market reaction, with Bitcoin experiencing a sharp intraday plunge of roughly $12,000 on the same day, marking the start of a broader price correction.

Broader awareness grew in late November 2025, when JPMorgan analysts highlighted the risks in a report, estimating $2.8 billion in outflows from Strategy alone and up to $8.8 billion if other index providers followed suit.

This may have amplified selling pressure on affected stocks and contributed to Bitcoin’s ongoing pullback amid a broader market downturn. 

Estimates of total forced selling, if implemented, range from $10 billion to $15 billion over a year, per Bitcoin for Corporations (BFC) analysis.

The consultation period, open for stakeholder feedback, closed on December 31, 2025. BFC, a coalition accelerating corporate Bitcoin adoption, mobilized quickly. They launched a website detailing the proposal’s flaws, including a technical appendix outlining potential market impacts. BFC drafted a letter opposing the change, gathering over 1,500 signatures in two weeks and delivering it to MSCI on December 30. Eight of the 39 affected companies are BFC members.

After initial outreach, BFC held a call with MSCI’s head of research and leadership.

“We had a very constructive conversation,” said George Mekhail, BFC’s executive director.

“I think they were very much still in a listening and learning posture. I think a lot of this just really has to do with a lack of education and understanding of Bitcoin itself, as well as these Bitcoin treasury companies and the significance of their operating businesses.”

Mekhail noted the proposal appeared driven by genuine analytical concerns rather than malice, triggered by Metaplanet’s recent preferred share issuance, not Strategy’s larger holdings. A key gap: MSCI made no distinction between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, treating all digital assets alike. This has fostered temporary alignment between Bitcoin advocates and the broader crypto sector in opposition, highlighting an ongoing education gap between the Bitcoin industry and Wall Street institutions.

Next, MSCI announces its decision on January 15, 2026. If approved, exclusions take effect February 1.

Mekhail outlined three scenarios:

1. implementation (worst case, forcing sales),

2. a delay for further review (most likely, per his assessment),

3. or full withdrawal (best case).

Polymarket bettors currently give a 77% chance of Strategy’s delisting from MSCI by March 31.

Source: Polymarket

Most financial fallout would hit Strategy, which holds the vast majority of affected Bitcoin treasuries. Founder Michael Saylor’s firm has engaged MSCI directly, issuing its own letter and working behind the scenes. Other opposition includes letters from Strive Asset Management and investor Bill Miller.

Industry pushback has been robust and visible, with no major groups publicly supporting the proposal. This asymmetry underscores Bitcoin’s organized, motivated constituency versus dispersed critics, echoing dynamics in recent political shifts like the 2024 U.S. election.

A withdrawal would boost corporate Bitcoin strategies; implementation could deter treasuries. As Mekhail put it, “The most bullish outcome is that they take it to heart and they withdraw the proposal.”

The decision tests Wall Street’s adaptation to Bitcoin’s role in balance sheets.

Democrats immediately denounced President Trump’s operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro, calling it an illegal war despite broad precedent supporting the commander-in-chief’s authority to conduct such missions without congressional approval.

Even former Vice President Kamala Harris has chimed in.

“Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable,” Harris claimed in a post on X. “That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise. We’ve seen this movie before. Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.”

Other Democrats claimed that the operation to capture Maduro was a “distraction.”

During an appearance on MSNOW on Saturday, Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.) suggested the timing of Maduro’s capture served primarily as a distraction from issues Democrats plan to spotlight when Congress reconvenes, namely the upcoming anniversary of the Capitol riot on January 6, and the Epstein files.

“I think it was mentioned by one of your earlier speakers that Donald Trump is transactional, what he wants is access to those oil reserves,” Strickland said.

“At the same time, this is also a big distraction. Look at the timing of this. We go back in session on Tuesday. We are going to talk about the Affordable Care Act premiums. We’re going to talk about January 6, the Epstein files, the economy, all those things that are so important to the American people, and, what a coincidence, this happens.“

She also drew a comparison between Maduro and Trump regarding election integrity.

“It also is not a surprise of the timing. We’re going back to Congress next week… and we’ll be talking about January 6, which is kind of ironic here, because…Maduro, he actually did steal two elections. And Donald Trump tried to do that on January 6, but he failed,” Strickland said.

Strickland wasn’t the only one pushing the “distraction” angle.

 “It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month. It’s about oil and regime change,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claimed.

And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” she wrote.

However, these accusations ignored a glaring contradiction.

The Trump administration carried out an operation targeting a leader the Biden-Harris administration actively sought to apprehend. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced on January 10, 2025, mere days before Joe Biden and Kamala Harris left office, that the State Department would increase the reward to $25 million for Maduro.

“In solidarity with the Venezuelan people, the U.S. Government and our partners around the world are taking action today,” Blinken announced in a statement on January 10, 2025.

“The Department of State is increasing the reward offers to up to $25 million each for information leading to the arrests and/or convictions of Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello. The Department of State is also adding a new reward offer of up to $15 million for Maduro’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López. These three reward offers stem from criminal narcotrafficking indictments announced in March 2020.”

Biden’s outgoing administration framed the increased reward as part of coordinated international pressure on the illegitimate Maduro regime.

It appears that the only distraction going on here is from the Democrats, who don’t want the public to realize that Trump succeeded where Biden-Harris failed.

Authored by Tom Kool via OilPrice.com,

OPEC+ confirmed on Sunday that it will keep oil production steady through the first quarter of 2026, as eight key producers reaffirmed their commitment to market stability amid a steady global economic outlook and what they described as healthy oil market fundamentals.

Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman met virtually on January 4 to review global market conditions and outlook.

The group reiterated its decision, first announced on November 2, 2025, to pause planned production increases in February and March 2026, citing seasonal demand patterns.

Following the meeting, OPEC+ produced the following production table for February 2026:

In a joint statement, the eight producers said current market conditions remain supportive, pointing to relatively low global inventories as a sign that the oil market is well balanced despite last year’s sharp decline in crude prices.

Oil prices fell more than 18% in 2025, the steepest annual drop since the pandemic, as supply growth outpaced demand and concerns over a growing glut mounted.

The group also emphasized that the previously announced 1.65 million barrels per day of voluntary production cuts could be returned to the market either in part or in full, depending on evolving market conditions, and only in a gradual manner.

The producers stressed that flexibility remains central to their strategy, including the option to extend or reverse additional voluntary adjustments, such as the 2.2 million barrels per day of cuts announced in November 2023.

OPEC+ further reiterated its collective commitment to full conformity with the Declaration of Cooperation. The producers confirmed that any overproduction since January 2024 will be fully compensated, with compliance and compensation to be monitored by the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee (JMMC).

Despite heightened geopolitical tensions – including strains between Saudi Arabia and the UAE over Yemen and uncertainty surrounding Venezuela following the U.S. capture of President Nicolas Maduro – delegates said these developments did not alter the group’s near-term policy stance.

“In an environment this fragile, OPEC+ is choosing caution, preserving flexibility rather than introducing new uncertainty into an already volatile market,” said Jorge Leon, an analyst at consultant Rystad Energy AS.

“The political transition in Venezuela adds another major layer of uncertainty.”

Caracas may hold the world’s biggest oil reserves, but years of under – investment, mismanagement and international isolation have diminished the country to a fraction of its former standing.

But, bear in mind that…

When you hear that Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, remember that ~2/3 of that comes from the Chavez and Maduro governments using generous assumptions to reclassify large volumes of lower utility, heavy crude as recoverable. https://t.co/SSA7u8Ovjy pic.twitter.com/JG1VrIUqTo

— Dr. Robert Rohde (@RARohde) January 4, 2026

Venezuela currently pumps about one million barrels of oil a day, roughly a third of what it produced a decade ago and under 1% of global supplies.

Washington’s recent seizure and pursuit of tankers while it pressured Maduro’s regime helped curb output in the country’s critical Orinoco Belt by 25%.

Production could rise by about 150,000 barrels a day within a few months if sanctions are lifted, but getting back to 2 million barrels a day or higher would require “massive reforms” and large investments from international oil companies, according to consultants at Kpler.

The eight OPEC+ countries agreed to continue holding monthly meetings to assess market conditions, compliance levels, and compensation progress. Their next meeting is scheduled for February 1, 2026.

A Milwaukee judge who was found guilty last month of obstructing federal agents by letting an illegal immigrant slip through a side door at her courthouse has resigned. 

Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted last month on a federal felony charge, was charged by federal prosecutors after she distracted federal agents who were trying to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican citizen who had entered the United States illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state-level battery case. 

The indictment, dated May 13, 2025, accused her of obstructing the law by assisting Floriz-Ruiz to evade arrest, and falsely advising ICE agents that they required a judicial warrant to arrest him.

Dugan was found guilty by a federal grand jury on Dec. 18, 2025 on one count of violating Section 1505 of Title 18 of the US code. Her resignation comes as GOP members of the Wisconsin State Legislature were preparing to impeach her and remove her from office following her conviction. 

Democrat Gov. Tony Evers said his office had received her resignation letter and would move forward with filling the judicial vacancy. In her resignation letter addressed to Evers, Dugan said that during her years on the bench, she oversaw thousands of cases with “a commitment to treat all persons with dignity and respect, to act justly, deliberately and consistently, and to maintain a courtroom with the decorum and safety the public deserves.” (as opposed to following the law, of course). 

“As you know, I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary,” the letter continues.

“I am pursuing this fight for myself and for our independent judiciary,” she added. 

Dugan, who has not been sentenced, faces up to five years in prison.

Her attorneys filed a motion with the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on Dec. 23, 2025, asking to set aside the conviction. 

Hannah Dugan broke the law, was found guilty by a jury, and is resigning.

A word to the wise: Don’t obstruct federal law enforcement when they are arresting a criminal illegal alien. https://t.co/fNkNdvMRn5

— Rep. Tom Tiffany (@RepTiffany) January 3, 2026

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Wall Street’s market outlook enters 2026 in a bullish mood, albeit with nuance. After three consecutive years of substantial gains in major indexes, many strategists expect the U.S. stock market to extend its rally into another year, with the central Wall Street banks highlighting several drivers supporting continued upside, from increases in productivity due to AI to the tax cuts and deregulation from the OBBBA.

Goldman Sachs, for example, forecasts that S&P 500 earnings per share will accelerate in 2026, rising approximately 12 percent from 2025 levels. This earnings momentum underpins the constructive view on equities, and they see opportunities not just in prominent technology names, but also across cyclical sectors such as small caps, non-residential construction, and consumer stocks exposed to the middle-income consumer.

Furthermore, global growth is expected to stay sturdy in 2026. Goldman Sachs projects 2.8 percent global GDP growth, up from consensus expectations, with the U.S. economy outpacing most major peers. China’s growth is also forecast to improve, broadening the backdrop for global stock demand.

Morgan Stanley echoes a positive but tempered outlook, suggesting that U.S. equities will outperform global peers, a reversal from last year, with the S&P 500 projected to rise to about 7,800.

Regardless of the firm, several key structural factors universally support their bullish outlook:

• Monetary policy is expected to remain supportive. The Federal Reserve has already enacted rate cuts in 2025, and further moderation in borrowing costs could preserve liquidity and investment demand. Historical data indicate that positive equity returns occur when rate cuts coincide with established bull markets.

• Earnings growth is forecast to remain robust. Beyond headline numbers, broad sectors could benefit from technological adoption and operational leverage as companies expand margins.

• Sector breadth may improve. After several years of narrow leadership dominated by mega‑cap tech, strategists see room for cyclicals, financials, and industrials to play a larger role in 2026 performance.

This combination drives the bullish premise: 2026 will not just be about extending the past year’s returns, but consolidating gains across more parts of the market. That view is supported by the earnings expectations for this year, with the Magnificent 7 growth rates slowing but the bottom 493 surging.

So, with such a bullish market outlook, what is there to worry about?

The Bearish Counterpoint: What Could Go Wrong?

Despite the bullish narrative, a thoughtful case against unbridled optimism exists. Unlike the simple bull versus bear dichotomy, credible risks could significantly dampen or reverse the more bullish market outlooks.

First, we would be remiss not to mention valuations. Forward valuations are elevated, and while they are terrible market timing devices, they do represent investor sentiment, which is universally bullish. This means the market’s upside is more sensitive to disappointments in earnings or macro trends. If earnings growth does not materialize as expected, stocks may struggle, even in a benign macro setting. We discussed this recently, in “Risks To Market Outlooks.“

“Notably, these forecasts rest on an assumption that the economy will not only avoid recession but reaccelerate in the face of waning inflation. As noted, equity markets have responded by pushing valuations higher across major indexes, with price-to-earnings ratios well above historical medians. Simultaneously, investors have rewarded narratives built on the idea of a soft landing and a return to pre-pandemic trends.”

“However, this narrative appears to overlook the trends in recent economic data. Inflation expectations have moderated, not because of increased demand, but due to weaker consumption and cooling labor dynamics. As recent economic data indicate, disinflation has accompanied slower GDP growth and a decline in personal consumption momentum. If the economy were indeed set to reaccelerate, these trends should be increasing rather than returning to historical averages.”

Secondly, the market is pricing a “soft landing” where inflation cools, growth persists, and rate cuts continue. Yet, that outcome would be historically rare. When inflation falls this quickly, it typically reflects a slowdown in demand rather than policy success. Additionally, the strong relationship between economic growth and earnings should not be dismissed. That disconnect exposes investors to market risk if growth does not materialize as expected and valuations are reconsidered.

Furthermore, if inflation stubbornly remains above targets or the labor market shows uneven data, the Federal Reserve might delay or reduce the magnitude of rate cuts. A less accommodative stance could tighten financial conditions and pressure asset prices as market outlooks reverse.

Third, earnings growth estimates are very optimistic. As we head into 2026, strategists are hopeful that the bottom 493 stocks will begin to grow earnings aggressively. As noted previously:

“Wall Street currently expects the bottom 493 stocks to contribute more to earnings in 2026 than they have in the past 3 years. This is notable in that, over the past three years, the average growth rate for the bottom 493 stocks was less than 3%. Yet over the next 2 years, that earnings growth is expected to average above 11%. 

“Furthermore, the outlook is even more exuberant for the most economically sensitive stocks. Small and mid-cap companies struggled to produce earnings growth during the previous three years of robust economic growth, driven by monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, next year, even if the Fed’s soft landing narrative is valid, they are expected to see a surge in earnings growth rates of nearly 60%.”

There is nothing wrong with having an optimistic market outlook when it comes to investing; however, “outlooks can change rapidly,” which is a significant market risk, particularly when expectations and valuations are elevated.

Third, geopolitical and global trade pressures persist as a threat to more bullish market outlooks. Trade friction, geopolitical tension, or currency instability all contribute to sudden shifts in risk tolerance. Recent fund manager surveys identify AI valuation bubbles, bond market turbulence, inflation resurgence, credit stresses, and trade escalations as top concerns.

Which one will it be that “derails the apple cart?”

The most likely answer is that it will be none of them. This is because when investors are monitoring some risk, they make portfolio changes to hedge against that risk. Therefore, that “risk” becomes priced into the market. Most likely, the risk that eventually manifests itself will be something that no one is expecting. That “surprise” is what causes markets to buckle. Consider Trump’s tariff announcement last March; investors had to materially reprice the markets for a rapid change in forward expectations of earnings.

Finally, investors have become extremely complacent about above-average returns. Take a look at the total annual returns of the market since 2019.

• 2019 +31.2%

• 2020 +18.0%

• 2021 +28.5%

• 2022 -18.0%

• 2023 +26.1%

• 2024 +24.9%

• 2025 +17.8%

While those returns have been very healthy, they are detached from the underlying drivers of economic growth, which is why valuations have risen so much in recent years.

With analysts’ market outlooks based on strong revenue growth and margin expansion, several factors could derail the markets. As is always the case, a market priced for perfection leaves little room for earnings misses or growth shocks. If reality falls short of those optimistic assumptions, market risk could rise abruptly.