No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump's FATAL mistake with Venezuela invasion

Episode Date: January 7, 2026

Donald Trump’s massive Venezuela mistake paves the way for China to finally dominate the US once and for all. Brian interviews Biden’s deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer and Obama’s National security council spokesman Tommy Vietor about Venezuela; Senator Mark Kelly responds to Pete Hegseth who’s attempting to demote him; and Adam Klasfeld talks about Nicolás Maduro’s arraignment in New YorkSubscribe to All Rise News, Pod Save the World, and The Long Game PodcastShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Donald Trump's massive Venezuela mistake paves the way for China to finally dominate the U.S. once and for all. And I've got four interviews, Biden's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Feiner, and Obama's National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vitor, both discussed Venezuela. Senator Mark Kelly responds to beat Heggseth, who's attempting to demote him, and Adam Kassfeld talks about Nicholas Maduro's arraignment in New York. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. All right, so this is our first Wednesday episode, so thanks to everybody for tuning in.

We're going to be doing midweek episodes for the rest of the year. We're just a few days out now from Donald Trump's decision to basically signal a green light to all big countries across the globe that we're entering a second imperialist era. Trump has obviously announced that he's taking control of Venezuela. He's threatened to do the same with Colombia and Cuba, along with a refusal to rule out military intervention to take control of Greenland. And I'm sure the next shot across the bow is going to be against Panama. That's not far behind.

but think for a moment about the downstream effects of this. So, okay, we take control of a few South American countries for oil. A few problems there. Like, for example, the fact that the U.S. is already one of the world's biggest oil exporting countries, so it's not like allowing our oil companies to seize oil in Venezuela will finally allow us to be energy independent for the first time. Also, the oil doesn't just flood the United States. It goes to American companies, but they sell oil on the global market.

And even if more oil on the global market means that prices will fall, OPEC will probably just restrict supply, which are going to send prices back up. And finally, it's not like any of this happens right away. This takes years to set up the infrastructure to extract the oil if those companies even opt to do it in the first place. So, okay, not exactly a home run. But now think about the implications for a country like China. We're back in the imperialist era.

China sets its sights on Taiwan. If they take over that country, that means, they consolidate basically the entire global semiconductor industry, and they can limit what the United States has access to, which means that our GDP is suddenly in the hands of our main adversary. They also take full control of key sea and air routes in the Indo-Pacific, effectively rendering the U.S. impotent militarily in that part of the world, and that solidifies China's assent to the controlling force there. In other words, because Trump wants to embark in imperialism 2.0 so that he can feel big and powerful, we get access to

oil that we don't need and we double down on a dying form of energy. And at the same time, our main adversary, China gets access to technology that the whole world needs that powers the technology of the future. Trump is basically handing the future of the world to Xi Jinping on a silver platter. And what's worse, the goons and the GOP know better. No one does more complaining about China than those people. And yet now, miraculously, they got nothing to say when Trump is setting up a scenario where China basically owns the future all because they're too cowardly. to say one ill word of the God King. These people would rather put their own careers

over the economic and national security of the United States for themselves and their children, a party of narcissists and morons and cowards. And the saddest part is that there's no reason for this other than A, Trump's ego, and B, making Trump's donors richer. Remember, back during the campaign, he promised his oil executive friends

that if they gave him a billion dollars, he'd give them a great deal. Well, this is the deal. They get Venezuela and the money that comes with it, and Trump gets their continued campaign donations and the rest of us get to watch China eat our lunch as they dominate the world and the future, all because the president and his party

were too stupid or too greedy to get it their own way. All of which is why it could not be more essential to have a check on this runaway administration. Midterms are this year, and given the fact that Trump could sell off all of the Republicans firstborns, and they wouldn't say a word, we need Democrats in control to serve as a check against this White House.

The work to flip the House and the Senate starts now, so make sure your people are paying attention. Next up are my interviews with John Feiner, Tommy Vitor, Mark Kelly, and Adam Klassfeld. No lie is brought to you by One Skin. So I'm over the whole New Year and New Me thing. Short-term fads do not deliver long-term results. Science does, especially when it comes to skin care. That's why I use One Skin. Their formulas are powered by the OS1 peptide, a patented peptide built on longevity science, proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's not about adding extra steps to your routine. It's about swapping in smarter ones. My favorite is the body topical supplement,

especially in the winter months like right now when my skin gets really dry. So to have body lotion plus peptides could not be better. I love knowing that I'm supporting the cellular repair that keeps my skin looking and feeling better as I get older. One skin is known for cult favorite formulas like OS1 body, OS1 face, and OS1I. One skin stands out for their science-first approach to aging,

validated in five separate clinical studies, delivering hydration, barrier strengthening, and visible improvements to the skin with every product. All of One Skid's product are designed to layer effortlessly and even replace multiple steps in your routine, making long-term skin health simpler and smarter at any age. Born from over 10 years of longevity research, One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. And for a limited time, One Skin is making it even easier to stay consistent with up to 30% off your first three subscription orders when you use code BTC at oneskin.co slash BTC.

Again, that's 30% off with code BTC. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support this show and tell them we sent you. I'm joined now by the Deputy National Security Advisor from the Biden administration, John Feiner. John, thanks for joining me. Great to be back. So here's my question right off the top. It seems kind of counterintuitive to me that somebody like Donald Trump who understands pretty

intimately how media narratives are woven, why he would engage in basically a regime change war when his whole administration is predicated on this idea of America first, of discarding the neocon policies of the Bush era, and then basically just to do a Bush redux right here by going into South America to do regime change for oil. Yeah, I have to say, it confounds me a bit, too. For those of us who were a bit concerned for a whole range of reasons about what Trump might be like on foreign policy in a second term. The one thing that was somewhat reassuring to us was that he has this inherent squeamishness about the use of force. And by the way, that's not a bad thing. You know, this is the most kind

of solemn, sacred, consequential decision a president can make, putting troops in harm's way and frankly taking the lives of people in other countries. It should be taken seriously. It should be done rarely. But President Trump in his first year has now, attacked three countries the United States has never bombed before and now capped it off, as you say, with what was sort of the cardinal sin for the MAGA supporters of Trump foreign policy, which is a regime change war along the lines of what the Bush administration did in Iraq. And he doubled down on that by saying, we are now in charge, we are running Venezuela and continuing to make threats of sending troops in and even doing more. So there's

a lot still to come here. Can you explain to me why, if this was in any way about helping the people of Venezuela, which of course is some, you know, very tepid excuse offered up by the Trump administration, why he would leave in place the rest of his regime that was apparently so disqualifying that it required the U.S. to go in and extract the president. Yeah, it's interesting. There have been this sort of shifting set of rationales for why they had to do this. Initially, when the administration started bombing the civilian boats that they say are carrying drugs, and frankly, I have no reason to do this. to believe that or disbelieve that because they prevented, presented no evidence.

But they say they're carrying drugs. And they said that was the reason we needed this buildup of what he called a, you know, unprecedented armada in the Caribbean to start to threaten Venezuela. Then the rationale shifted quite quickly to actually the need to enforce a criminal warrant against the president of Venezuela only, President Maduro, even though there are many other people involved in drug trafficking in that country, which, by the way, is not a major source of drugs that come to the United States. but just leave that aside. The drug rationale fell off. Then the Maduro rationale sort of fell

off. And now he's saying, actually, this is about getting access to Venezuela's vast oil reserves for American energy companies, which is kind of an infamously bad reason to go to war, actually, that I think most people would be embarrassed to say out loud. And that seems to be what they're hanging their hat on. Well, I mean, doesn't that just kind of basically signal or broadcast to the world that we're entering a second era of imperialism, where if you're big enough? If you have enough military might, then you can pilfer the natural resources of smaller countries to defend themselves? Yeah, his sort of defining worldview from the minute he came to office has basically been, we, the United States are big and powerful, and we can

and should be able to do what we want. And by the way, not just the countries we don't like, but to our own friends and allies too. We will push them around. We will course them. We will extract things from them. And by the way, the countries that actually like this sort of worldview and this sort of approach are our adversaries and our stronger adversaries, frankly, than countries like Venezuela, adversaries like China and Russia that kind of want a free hand in their own neighborhoods, too, the way Trump is claiming he should have a free hand in the Western hemisphere for the United States. So I worry a lot, not just about what's happening in Venezuela, but about what this means for the negotiations going on about the end to the Ukraine war and

what he will give away to Russia on the same theory, that this is their backyard, about how Chinese will think about the credibility of our deterrence in the Indo-Pacific in Asia, particularly when it comes to Taiwan, if this is a president who says, really, what I care about is my own hemisphere. You know, we have seen a lot of instances, and it's almost kind of surprised me as somebody who got into politics in the last 10 years, but it's always so surprising how when a president goes to a foreign country, there is this sense of sovereign immunity that that, that, that, diplomatic immunity, whatever it may be, where they're safe wherever they go. But if it becomes

the new precedent in the world where we can pluck foreign leaders who are adversaries to our administration out of their country and into courtrooms, couldn't the same be said of a country that doesn't like Donald Trump, for example, that wants to pluck him out of the United States or wherever he may be and have him stand trial in their own respective countries? Absolutely. And even if maybe it's not realistic for countries to actually get to Trump, the way that the Trump administration is treating, again, civilian vessels, not warships, even if they are criminals who are trafficking drugs in the Caribbean, implicitly at least, or maybe even explicitly, gives other countries the right to treat civilians who could be American, who could be civilians from allied countries and other parts of the world, who they say are criminals. Remember, Vladimir Putin believes that President Zelensky of Ukraine is a criminal and that the Ukrainians have committed criminal action. against Russia. And there is nothing stopping him from invoking this same rationale or other countries invoking this same rationale to target our civilians. So I worry a lot about that. The other thing, by the way, that I think is worth putting on the table to worry about going

forward is because of the incredible skill and capability of our military, which I saw up close when I was in government, and it's something that is truly remarkable to behold. They pulled off this operation, but it gives you the impression that it was actually relatively easy or low risk. And it was not. Sending special forces into the heart of a densely populated capital to grab the head of state of a foreign country is an incredibly high risk mission. And I worry that they will draw the lesson that we can do this kind of thing anytime we want and pay very little price for it. And there is no guarantee that that will be the case the next time as good as our people are. What does it say that Trump basically just swatted away the idea of the opposition leader,

Maria Corchato, assuming power, given the fact that, you know, A, she had dedicated her Nobel Peace Prize to him, and obviously, that doesn't buy you a lot of goodwill, apparently. But B, if the whole pretext for this thing, you know, as you spoke about before, was this hostility against the Maduro regime to then just leave the Maduro regime in place, Sands Maduro himself, I mean, can you just speak about the fact that he rebuffed very, very easily and very quickly this idea of the opposition leader being the one to take power. Yeah, look, there were two really incredible moments in the president's first press conference where he had the opportunity to sort of frame what the United States had done for the American

people, to put it in the best possible light, best possible context. But he said two things that dramatically undermine that. One, as we've already talked about, that the United States is now running or in charge of Venezuela, which means he now quite clearly owns the consequences of everything that goes forward from here since we are ostensibly in charge. And then the second is what you just pointed to, which is the most defensible reason to want to put pressure on the Maduro regime was to want democracy for the people of Venezuela, to want them to live under a better government than they have had to suffer.

Because, by the way, Maduro is a terrible leader, a terrible person who has committed untold number of crimes against his own people. We should want him gone. But to do that by force and to own the consequences of that, Yes, we should want him gone and replaced by something better. And that does not seem to be Trump's goal. He basically said Marina Karina Machado, Nobel laureate, by the way, Nobel Peace Prize winner from just this past year, does not really have the popular support in Venezuela to govern.

Her ally, Edmundo Gonzalez, who actually won the 2024 Venezuela election. Our administration, the Biden administration, recognized him as the winner of that election. So he has a popular mandate. President Trump said, no, probably not. Not somebody who can govern either. So we will deal with essentially Maduro's deputy, now acting president, a woman named Delci Rodriguez, who is as much the old regime as you can be, as much as Maduro in many ways. And do you presume that the only reason for that is she was going to be compliant enough in terms of giving him carte blanche a clear runway to basically usurp all of their, you know, oil resources, natural resources as as he wants to take? That seems to be what they're betting on, that she will see the writing on the wall, she will hear the threats they, by the way, are continuing to make.

You know, they said if she doesn't do his bidding, essentially she will pay a bigger price than Maduro, almost seeming to maybe even threaten her life, but certainly threatened to go in and grab her the way they grabbed Maduro, and that she will do what Trump is asking for, which is give us the United States and our oil companies access to Venezuela's reserves and remains to be seen whether she will be compliant in that way. She's a survivor. She's a savvy operator, but she is an old guard, you know, Chavista, Maduro, ally. And so it's not going to be easy for her to work with the United States. And that is going to be a fine line to walk and putting pressure on her from the outside. Because remember, we're not in Venezuela. We don't have a large number of troops in Venezuela. So Trump has kind of set a bit of a trap for himself. He makes these threats from the outside. Either she complies or if she doesn't,

it sort of means he's got to up the ante, more military action, maybe more U.S. forces on the ground. And then we are into Quagmire territory that I don't think any Americans really support. John, last question here, to what extent do you think that Trump's campaign promise to oil executives when he asked for a billion dollars in exchange for a deal, do you think that this is the quo to that quid pro quo, that this is him making good on his promise and basically paying back these oil executives who donated so much to his campaign that now he's basically saying, look, you know, you wanted something in return for all that money. Here is the country of Venezuela? Well, on the one hand, I guess what I would say is, I don't know, is the honest

answer. I don't have any evidence to suggest that that is what is happening here. But on the other hand, I think it's important to point out that given the way this administration has operated over the last year, they do not get the benefit of the doubt on those sorts of questions. Questions that allege that maybe corruption or domestic politics are behind their foreign policy, just given how many examples have already been unearthed by enterprising reporters and others of them doing exactly that. So I think time will tell, the truth will eventually come out. I don't have the goods on that question, but I think it is incumbent on the administration to demonstrate otherwise, given how they've operated so far. John, for folks who want to hear more

from you, where can they go? Well, start of the podcast. It's called The Long Game. I co-hosted it with Jake Sullivan on Vox Media, and we'll be digging into this week, and then we publish every Friday. Awesome. I'm going to put the link to that podcast right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. John Feiner, thanks so much for taking the time. Appreciate it. Thanks, Brian. No lie is brought to by Hewle. So I skip meals way too often.

I'll look up and it's 2 o'clock in the afternoon. I never even ate breakfast, which obviously leaves me with no energy. That's where Heel comes in. It's got everything in it. 42 vitamins, minerals, superfoods, antioxidants, electrolytes, fiber, and it is legit delicious. And good news, Hewle has launched into Target stores across the country. They have launched their Black Edition ready to drink and their Daily Greens ready to drink. So you can head over to Target to grab some.

Now, there's Hewles Black Edition ready to drink. If you are short on time, this is the perfect, quick, complete meal. It's got 35 grams of protein, 27 essential vitamins and minerals, no artificial sweeteners, gluten-free and is ready to go and under $5 per meal. Then there's the Daily Greens ready to drink, which is a new addition to my routine. I'm drinking the peach and hibiscus right now. It gives me that mandatory pickup around two or three in the afternoon when I start fading. It was developed by registered nutritionists and dietitians.

Again, 42 vitamins, minerals, superfoods, and only 25 calories, four grams of fiber, and only one gram of sugar. So if you struggle with a busy schedule, Hew is the perfect solution to get a full meal's worth of nutrition in a ready to go drink. Heel makes healthy eating simple. They also just launched again in Target stores nationwide. Try both products today with 15% off your purchase for new customers. with my exclusive code BTC at www.hule.com slash BTC. That's Huell.com slash BTC. Use my code and fill out the post checkout survey to help support this show.

I'm joined now by the co-host of POTSafe America and POTSave the World and President Obama's National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vitor. Tommy, thanks for joining me. Hey, Brian, good to see you. So we have some new news here in the aftermath of the Venezuela invasion, and that is Greenland now seems to be back on the table and not just in, you know, the way that we've been speaking about it thus far, this has been confirmed by the White House. The White House offered up a statement that said, quote, President Trump has made it

well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal. So it seems like not only are they thinking about, you know, continuing. And so not only are they thinking about going into Greenland, but using the U.S. military to do it. So first and foremost, you know, the legality here of using the U.S. military to basically invade a fellow NATO signatory. Yeah, they're threatening to invade a NATO ally, which, I mean, look, I initially when

people were talking about this, I think the kind of conversation was tinged with the assumption, that Trump was trolling or just kidding around, right? Like, no, he is clearly deadly serious. And I think he has gotten more serious about this in the wake of the Maduro operation because he feels like, you know, he got universal praise for that. He looked decisive. He could use the military to kind of, you know, bend the world to his will. So now he wants Greenland and he's going to take it.

And so, you know, the stakes for NATO and just sort of like the international order are massive. Like the Danish prime minister said the following, quote, the international community, as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world's strongest defensive alliance, all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another. There was a joint statement earlier today from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK and Denmark making a similar point that like it is up to Denmark and the people of Greenland to decide who governs that territory. But Trump is basically threatening to invade them. I mean, this is, we are through the looking glass, man. This is like truly unprecedented.

scary stuff. And so I'm going to ask a question that I presume you're not going to be able to answer because of the fact that it is unprecedented. But isn't the whole point of NATO that if you invoke Article 5, if you attack one, you attack all, if the U.S. decides to invade a NATO ally, then does that mean that the rest of NATO is required to then come to Denmark or Greenland's defense and basically push back against the United States? Yeah, I mean, I think like we're in a place where it's just, I don't anyone's ever imagined a scenario where NATO attacks itself. I think in practice, what happens is the organization, the alliance just collapses and it ceases to exist. Because the United States military and its capabilities are the backbone of NATO. There's no disaggregating the two of them.

You know, I mean, like, you know, the American generals are serving at NATO headquarters. I mean, it's just like we're fully integrated. NATO uses all U.S. kit. I mean, it's just, it's unimaginable how this would work. But yeah, I mean, what we're talking to, that is a scenario where the U.S. attacks NATO. NATO invokes Article 5 and the United States, according to the charter, we have to attack ourselves in defense of us. I mean, it's logically insane. And so what does this do to the global order then, the post-World War II global order where, you know, where large countries like the U.S., like Russia, like China, are prevented from, you know, making good on their imperial, you know, territorial, imperialistic ambitions and

instead, you know, the floodgates kind of open. Yeah, I mean, what's so crazy about this, Brian, is, you know, one thing Trump seems very proud of is that he has spent lots and lots of time browbeating NATO countries to spend more on their own defense. And he claims he's reinvigorated NATO. But it seems like through this move, through an effort to take Greenland, he could collapse the entire organization, which, you know, I guess we end up in a world. we were in before World War I and World War II, where big, powerful countries had spheres of influence, and they ruled those areas. I mean, clearly what Trump wants, and this was articulated in his national security strategy that came out last year, is for the United States to dictate

all things in the Western Hemisphere that he cares about. It seems like he kind of doesn't care if the Russians take parts of Ukraine, obviously, he doesn't care at all. He seems like he doesn't care if they take other, maybe if they harass other countries in Europe. And it seems like that would be what happens next year if NATO no longer exists. And then there's an open question of like, okay, does that mean China gets to control Asia? What happens if they take Taiwan? What happens if the Chinese, you know, try to take an island that is contested by Japan, which is a treaty ally of ours? So we get into some like very scary scenarios. Well, the problem with that, and this is something I discussed with John Feiner, who is President Biden's Deputy National Security

advisor problem with that is if we open the floodgates and basically um you know reintroduce like a second uh imperial um moment in in the world okay so we're able to go into venezuela where where we might have access to oil that may or may not produce and would take you know dozens of years for any any results to actually you know come to bear uh or we get greenland which again is you know the same same scenario we we already have like treaties with with denmark and greenland so so we can you know we can partner with them regardless without having to invade them but if the floodgates are open and then china takes over Taiwan um that's way better for china than trying to drives way more benefit on their end than the united states would derive on our end so aren't we just giving a permission

structure for our actual biggest ally to basically completely overtake us in the technology of tomorrow so that we can double, triple, quadruple down on the technology of yesterday? Yeah, there's a couple things about this that make no sense. The point you just made is a very important one, which is Trump wants to get, you know, some, you know, kind of relatively small amount of additional oil out of Venezuela, which I guess maybe in three, four, five, ten years could make gas prices a little bit cheaper, but it's not guaranteed, right? I mean, gas prices are oil prices are pretty low right now in the past. When there's oversupply, OPEC countries will just reduce their production to keep prices high. So God only knows what it'll actually. And by the way,

like those, our oil companies don't just, we don't have state run oil companies. So ExxonMobil and Chevron, they're going to sell the oil on the global market anyway. So it's not like if you give a glut of crude oil to these companies that it just automatically comes to the United States. These are companies that are looking to make a profit, not to supply the U.S. with ever decreasing oil prices, like they're just looking to make a profit. And if it doesn't, if it means that they're going to have to sell overseas, that's what they'll do. This is still a business. It's not just helping American citizens. Yeah, they're not going to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil fields if they can't turn a profit. I mean, these are, these are oil companies, the rapacious

capitalist, you know, organizations are profit driven. And then, but the broader point that's sort of confusing to me is if Trump is suddenly conceding that there are spheres of influence and that we have one and Russia has another and China has another, that actually puts the United States it's in a weaker position than where we are today because currently, like, the United States tries to project power everywhere, especially in the Asia Pacific. Are we suddenly going to pull out of Japan? Are we going to pull troops out of South Korea? Are we going to pull out of the Philippines and just concede that entire area to the Chinese? I mean, it, none of it makes sense. It's like strategically, you know, geopolitically, from the energy perspective, it's just like baffling.

And so do you have any concern from your advantage about what this means in terms of like the U.S.'s position with regard to our allies? I mean, what does it, what does the United States, and this is something that you nor I have ever contended with in our lifetimes or in fact anybody listening to this, what does it mean if the U.S. kind of abandons our democratic allies and aligns ourselves with the autocracies of the world, what does that put us in an adversarial position with, you know, the Western Europe? with France and Germany and like, what does that mean for the broader, the broader positioning of the United States with regards to our allies moving forward? Yeah, I mean, it's just like we're back to the wild, wild west, you know, I mean, the NATO alliance that has been one of the most successful organizations in modern American history and modern world history. World history, yeah.

It's prevented wars until the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And if NATO just sort of ceases to exist or exists in name only, I mean, you got to believe that the Russians will invade Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania or Moldova. And all of a sudden, you know, you are just going to see Russian expansion. You're going to see wars across Europe. You're going to see, you know, God knows what, you know. So it's like we, I think it's in our interest not to have a more militarized European continent. It's in our interest to try to prevent and deter wars. I think we'll save money in the long run. I think it benefits our economy to be able to trade freely with countries in Europe.

So, like, it just, Trump is destabilizing the world in ways that are truly shocking. And it is really frustrating, Brian, to watch, you know, the kind of Lindsay Grams of the world, right? The people that run around talking about freedom and these big shot neocons don't say a word. They kind of like gaffa along when Trump threatens to invade Greenland or Marco Rubio, right, who should know better. He knows the impact that this will have. But they're just like going along with the Trump show because it gives them power. Okay. So all of the reasons that you laid out and I laid out, whether it's, you know, ceding control of, you know, of Asia to China and Russia, whether it's

destabilizing the world of the global economy, whether it's alienating our allies and the free trade agreements that come with it. All of that stuff is compelling. And presumably there's at least one or two people in the White House who might be able to make those same points, especially given the fact that this administration was predicated on this America First ideology. And so what does Trump gain from engaging, from embarking in kind of this fool's errand? Like why, of all people, somebody whose literal campaign slogan was America First should understand that by reverting back to the to like the Bush era neocon policies of, you know, the 80s up until early 2000s, is not going to, you know, be popular or beneficial.

I think it's entirely ego. You know, he likes the headlines. He likes looking decisive. He thinks that he'll go down in history if he is a U.S. president who got us a bunch more territory, you know, like he, I think he thinks like literal territorial expansion of the United States is something that will be historic and memorable and will put him in the history books. I can't, I can't think of any other reason than that.

The idea that, you know, we need to compete in the art. Arctic with the Russians and the Chinese. Like, sure, of course, everyone agrees with that. But you do that through NATO. You do it not by invading a NATO country. So I think this is all about him and his ego and his desire to just dominate. Yeah, that makes total sense, even if it's a completely incoherent foreign policy. Well, look, this story is obviously fast developing and you and Ben have been doing excellent coverage on Pod Save the World. So highly recommend for everybody who's watching right now if you want to stay on top of international affairs, especially as the Venezuela situation continues to unfold, as the Greenland situation continues to unfold,

please go ahead and subscribe to POTSafe America's YouTube channel. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description. If you're listening on the podcast, I'll throw it in the show notes. Tommy, as always, thanks, man. Thanks, Brian. I'm joined now by the U.S. Senator in Arizona. Mark Kelly, thanks so much for joining me. Thank you for having me back. So, Senator Kelly, you're obviously in the news in a big way right now because Pete Hegseth decided to log on to Twitter and basically broadcast some tweet that he's seeking to have you demoted and then there would be a corresponding reduction in your pay. So I have to ask first and foremost for your reaction to this tweet from the Secretary of Defense

basically attacking you. Well, he really likes Twitter. I mean, that's how I find out everything from the Department of Defense regarding, you know, this situation where I said something that the president did. didn't like, that Pete Hegsett didn't like, and the president called for me to be hanged, to be executed, to be prosecuted. And it was a very simple message that members of the military need to comply with the law. We said something that was true and lawful.

He said, I should be hanged. And now this is the next step is Pete Hegseth through Twitter initially. We did then receive a real formal letter of censure. But where he says he's censuring me because of what I said, not just the video, by the way, over a period of time. And then we'll be looking into demoting me. I'm a retired Navy captain after 25 years on active duty. He says he's going to demote me, and that comes with a corresponding reduction in pension.

First and foremost, the basis of all of this was you just reiterating or stating members of the military are required. to refuse to obey unlawful orders. That's in the military code of conduct. And so what is the basis for this whole temper tantrum happening at the hands of Pete Hegseff and Donald Trump? Well, that's it. It's a temper tantrum by both of them. Trump's saying, I should be hanged because he didn't like what I said.

And Pete Heggseth doing Donald Trump's bidding. I think he shows up for work every single day trying to figure out how does he please the commander in chief. he runs around talking about how he's the secretary of war the letter of censure by the way said the war department I'm the secretary of war under my authority as the secretary of war there is no department of war

that comes from Congress these people are a joke they're unsurious and unfortunately in the case of Hegset he's running the biggest department in the United States government perhaps one of the hardest jobs in the world He has no idea what he's doing.

But today, again, he wanted to get some, you know, more followers and likes on Twitter and decided to notify me about this, you know, in this manner. But I think it demonstrates a lot about him. But this is really serious. And it's not about me. They're sending a message to every retired member of the military, every former service member, every current service member, and every U.S. citizen, do not cross Donald Trump,

do not say something that displeases him, that government accountability is over, that you cannot speak out against this government. Brian, it's un-American. And it's really about all of us. This is not, no longer about me. This is about the freedom of speech. that all Americans should enjoy.

I hear what you're saying about this, not being you, about you, that your situation is a microcosm for the broader issues facing this country. One last question about you, though, do you have any recourse for this move? I mean, is this something that Pete Hegseth unilaterally would be able to do? And is there any relationship between the fact that he had claims previously that he would court-martial you where presumably you'd be able to make your case and very easily explain that you saying that soldiers have a duty and obligation to refuse unlawful orders would be, you know, an easy case to make. And so that's why he didn't go that route and instead

is trying to do it unilaterally. But do you have any recourse if he tries to do this unilaterally? Well, first of all, he's not going to apparently decide not to court-martial me because he knows how ridiculous this is. And he would lose in front of a jury. And he would be exposed as a fool. Do I have recourse in this, him putting a letter? in my record. He made the letter public already, so what does that even matter? Yeah. Yeah, but I do have recourse if they do make the decision

to demote me, so reduce me in rank. Yeah, I've got recourse. I take this seriously. I'm not backing down. I'm not going away. I'm going to continue to speak out against these clowns, including the president of the United States. When he does stuff that is not in

our country's best interest, it's not only my right, it's my obligation. I'm a United States Senator. I have oversight responsibility over this Department of Defense. I'm also a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. It's my job to speak up when this government is doing things that do not make us safer, more prosperous. This guy's focused on the wrong stuff. And by the way, it seems that like everything he does, he just like breaks it.

And what is next? Yesterday he's talking about Greenland again, which I thought was a lot. of like bluster. Now I don't know. I mean, who knows? To that end, in terms of, you know, having oversight over this administration, can I have your reaction to the fact that this is an administration that is engaged in yet another Bush era regime change war expressly for the purpose of oil in South America right now? Well, he said in his press conference two days ago, he said oil 20 times. Yeah. You know, this seems to be about oil. But, you know, who knows. Initially it was about fentanyl. And then they found out there was no fentanyl on any of those

boats. So then it became about cocaine. Then it became about regime change. And then it was back to drugs and a guy and prosecute him. And now it's back to oil. So, you know, who could even keep track? But I think the the important point here is Donald Trump never has a plan. He doesn't have a plan for this. He says, we are running the country. He's not running the country. Nicholas Maduro's vice president, his number two person, also who is corrupt, she's running the country. At some point, is Donald Trump going to try to run the country? Maybe that has generally not worked out well for us. It did not work in South Vietnam. It did not work in Cuba. Did not work in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya. Regime change.

should not be the policy of the federal government, the United States government. It's not an effective policy to make us a more successful, more prosperous, and safer nation. What message does this send to the Chinas and Russia's of the world if we're going to engage in kind of a second coming of imperialism where, you know, if you're big enough, if you're strong enough, you can pilfer the natural resources of smaller countries around you, especially in light of the fact that, you know, you've got Russia chomping at the bit for Ukraine, you've got China chomping at the bit for Taiwan, and apparently now the United States, you know, whether it's Venezuela, Greenlands, Panama, you name it.

Columbia, Cuba, I mean, that's just in the last couple days. Yeah. I think it could be the justification that somebody like she is looking for with regards to Taiwan, you know, rationale for Putin with Ukraine, but also beyond Ukraine. I mean, right next door, former Soviet, part of the Soviet empire, Kazakhstan, who's got mineral wealth and oil resources. But doesn't that ultimately hurt us? If we're giving a permission structure for our biggest adversaries to pilfer the natural resources of smaller countries around them, doesn't that only set up a scenario where China then becomes stronger, where Russia then become stronger,

it becomes more difficult for the United States to contend with those countries because they've been given that permission structure? Forget about stronger. Just having for China to have justification, if they can point to us and say, hey, we are justified in removing the leader of Taiwan, the Republic of China, and taking over that country and taking over the semiconductor manufacturing capability. You talk about this, what does it do to us? It will be devastating for our economy. It also puts us in a position that this president or the next president has to make a

really hard decision about whether we go to war against China over Taiwan. It's going to be a tough call. Taiwan is, we don't recognize Taiwan as a country, but we do help them in their own defense from the People's Republic of China, from China. A war with China between the United States and China, there's a scenario where there is no winner in this kind of conflict. And giving China the justification to take whatever that next step may be for them is a mistake. We'll leave it there. Senator Kelly, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you again for having me on. I'm joined now by All Rise News is Adam Klasfeld. Adam, you are in New York right now at the arraignment for Nicholas Maduro, the former or ousted president of Venezuela who was brought to the U.S. So first and foremost, can you talk about what happened at the arraignment today? So what happened to the arraignment, in essence, was that Nicolas Maduro and his wife Celia Flores pleaded not guilty to the counts of the indictment charged against them. But there was more, of course, that happened beyond that.

These are historic proceedings. And as Nicolas Maduro entered the courtroom, he immediately noticed the filled ceremonial courthouse, the fact that the jury box was filled with reporters, as was the gallery. He greeted them happy New Year three times before sitting down. And these are, if you've ever attended an arraignment, these are very formal. proceedings. You are alerted of your rights. Things like verifying your name is something that happens. And so the 92-year-old judge, Alvin Hellerstein, prompted Mr. Maduro to give his name.

And Maduro replied with a speech. He said, I'm the president of Venezuela, like he said, that he was kidnapped in a military operation. He was interrupted by the judge at that point, said you will have all the time you need to air this when the proceedings proceed, but right now, I am simply asking you your name. He repeated his name. And so quite a lot happened surrounding the proceedings. There was a man in the gallery, Pedro Rojas, who, when Maduro started on that speech, when he described himself as the president, of Venezuela shouted out, Hamas, meaning never in Spanish. And there was a little exchange with them at the end of the proceedings. Tensions are high. Mr. Rokot said outside the courtroom,

speaking to reporters, that he himself was targeted by the government, which is what brought him there to watch the proceedings. All right. So I have a few questions here. But the first, and this might betray a little of my naivity on this topic. But can you talk about the legality of basically extracting a world leader, a president of a different country and bringing them into the United States? And I mean, does that open the floodgates for any foreign leader who we view as as a criminal to be extracted and brought to the United States? It's an absolutely great question, Brian. And we found out today that there's a question that will be litigated in these proceedings. Nicolas Maduro is represented by Julian Assange's attorney, Barry Pollard, also by David Wickstrom, who is a public defender who previously represented a relative, excuse me, a co-defendant of former Andoran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who Trump pardoned.

So to your question, Brian, the legality of the raid that whisked Maduro to this New York federal court has. today is something that Barry Pollack, his attorney, promised to litigate. And here's a backdrop. I expect the government to say that this happened with former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriego back in the 1980s under George H.W. Bush. But I expect that this will be distinguished by the fact that the Panamanian government at the time declared war on the United States. Courts will have to grapple with the fact of what guardrails if there is an indictment anywhere in the world

will an indictment justify taking away a purported head of state or any national anywhere will it is a formal extradition process to think a thing in the past

in the Noriega case Noriega's convictions for drug trafficking and other offenses were affirmed And so there is precedent for something like this happening, although we heard today from Barry Holland in the defense attorney for Mr. Maduro that he will challenge him. They are going to claim that Mr. Maduro has sovereign immunity, and I expect that the U.S. government will say that he has been illegitimately serving as the president of Venezuela since the 2018 election. and the National Assembly declaring Mr. Maduro a usurper in 2019. So the question that you pose is a very good one.

It's one that we will hear more about. There's going to be a hearing in this very courthouse right behind me on March 17th that I think will engage in these very questions. I mean, would this lead us into a world where, you know, if an opponent of Vladimir Putin comes into office and says, well, Putin clearly didn't win his election. with 98% of the vote or whatever vote total he claims to have gotten. And so does that give us grounds then to go into Russia, into the Kremlin and just, you know, pluck Vladimir Putin

out of office and bring him into the United States in very much the same way that Nicholas Maduro was? Right. So, I mean, to your point, Brian, there are two different things that were grappling like this is U.S. law and the entire international order. And you talk about other officials. authoritarian rulers anywhere around the globe, there is this, these are norms that are going to be set around the world. What about other governments? One of the benefits we have as a U.S. citizen is that if a foreign dictatorship decides that someone has committed a crime because they have spoken badly about the regime, that our courts are there as a bowl worth. You can go to your court. There will be a formal extradition process. You can contest it. Are we moving into

world. And I think this is going to be part of a broader conversation, although not necessarily the conversation that transpires in this courthouse of what does this do for U.S. long precedent and what does this do for the world moving forward? By that same logic, is there a world where another country can say that Donald Trump is as bad as we say Nicholas Maduro is and that they then have grounds based on what we're doing here in the United States to come in and pluck Donald Trump out of the United States and bring him into, you know, some judicial proceedings in a different country. You know, right after the raid in Caracas and the arrest of Maduro going in

and his being sent first to Guantanamo Bay to be handed off and sent to the Southern District of New York, there was a big international response. political scientist Ian Brenner said essentially be careful that what we do today once enemies can do the next day and that the law of the jungle, the might makes right world, can harm everyone. Other things that we learned in court today, I would say that so Syria Cruz, you could see at the defense table had a bandage over her right eye, some. on her temple and so she appeared a little injured and her attorney made a point to say that he wanted a medical examination that these are injuries he said that she sustained during the raid on the compound i expect that will be litigated we're going to hear a lot more about uh this is once things come to court what is going to be explored are for one the allegations of the

indictment, the narco-trafficking conspiracy, the allegations of terrorism links, and all of that, yes. But also, the legality of the raid, what actually happened, what is, what sovereign immunity arguments are there, and what kind of world are we going to have going forward in terms of U.S. law and the international reward? Adam, does the fact that Trump just pardoned the former Honduran president for basically importing 400 tons of drugs into the United States, does that undermine this case where the U.S. government claims to take such a hard line against narco-narco terrorists when the last thing they did with the previous narco-terrorists, who just so happened to be another South American

world leader, was to basically give that person immunity? So we'll see if Maduro's lawyers bring it up. it certainly undermines the public rationale for this. If you have a foreign government leader, foreign Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted by a jury of, as you said, a narco-traffting conspiracy that involved 400 tons of cocaine, and evidence came out at trial that he accepted bribes from El Chapo.

and that Mr. Hernandez was pardoned by Trump after appealing to his sense of I am a prosecuted former president that it certainly undermines it in the public eye. Now, will it undermine it over the course of these proceedings? Well, this remains to be seen. We'll see one thing that is notable is that he has retained two lawyers, a private counsel and the public defender, and a public defender represented someone in Juan Orlando Hernandez's conspiracy case, a co-conspirator of Mr. Hernandez, is now one of the public defenders who is representing Mr. Maduro.

Adam, I was surprised to see that the judge presiding over this case is 92 years old. I'm curious in watching the judge preside, how did he look? It's not every day, especially with the issue of age so prevalent in politics today. How is a 92-year-old judge presiding over this case? He's a very sharp non-aginarian. One thing about Alvin Hellerstein, he presided over a case very similar to this one, and not counting this conspiracy case last year in 2025. In May, he released a ruling blocking Trump's invocation of the Alien Anemies Act,

which was premised on the idea that the Venezuelan gang, Trained to Araagua, is an arm of the Venezuelan state involved in an invasion of the U.S. Judge Hellerstein was the one who ruled that was illegal, that there was no invasion, and that the justification, the legal justification, that premise, whisking away 200 men to what he described as a notoriously evil prison, El Salvador's Seacot prison. And that he, this was a judge who is known as a sharp defender of civil liberties. He's been on the bench a long time.

He is 92 years old. He ordered the release, as I recall, on Abu Ghraib videos back in the day. But he, he, one thing to talk about his age a bit, when he began the proceedings, he said that, One of his jobs is to guarantee Mr. Magidorea a fair trial, but he also gave a crack about his age and his type. He said he was taking the bench and sitting behind one of those monitors where during the trial, the parties and the judge might take a look at what is in the running transcript. And he said, the problem with being short is that the judges are obscured by the modern technology. So, you know, he's a charming person. He's a tough judge.

and he's been known as someone who can hold the government to speak to the fire. Last question here, Adam. What is the environment like there? I mean, this is a historic moment that you're right in the middle of where the U.S. has basically extradited a sitting president of a foreign country into a federal courtroom in New York. And so what is the atmosphere like where you are? Well, I mean, the historic weight of the moment is apparent anyone who, anyone who's been in the court and surrounding the court, Mr. Maduro began his speech today by saying,

I am a kidnap president. There was a person in the gallery who was so incensed by what Mr. Maduro was saying that when he said, I'm the president of Venezuela, shouted out Hamas, meaning never in Spanish, that after the proceeding, when he, when Mr. Maduro said again that he's a president of Venezuela, We shouted out illegitima, illegitimate. Right across the street from where I am, it's a few hours after the arraignment, so it has broken up. But there were two pretty sizable protests. There were strong critics of the Maduro regime on the left, and there were people who were very strong critics of U.S. actions to my right.

And many of them have been staying along. many of them have been speaking to reporters. But this is a place where pensions are high, where the secrets of two governments are spilling out of the federal forthouts and will do so for months and maybe years to come. So I expect that this won't be the last major demonstration outside 500th Street

related to the case of Nicolas Maduro. Well, I should let everybody know right now that Adam is, you know, bringing us the action straight from the courtroom in New York. He's oftentimes all around the country wherever these court cases are happening. And so a small step that we can all take to support his work as an independent journalist is to subscribe to his substack, his newsletter. I'm going to put all rise news right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Again, he is not backed by some major media conglomerate. He is doing this on his own. And so this is

exactly the kind of fearless independent journalism that we should all be supporting. So again, that link is right here on the screen and also in the post-descript. of this video. Adam, as always, thanks for the time today. Thank you so much, Brian. It's a pleasure. Thanks again to John Feiner, Tommy Vitor, Mark Kelly, and Adam Classfeld. That's it for this episode. Talk to you this weekend. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen

on all of my other channels, or you can go to bryantaylorcoen.com to learn more.