The Daily Signal - What Comes Next for Venezuela? State Department Official Explains | Tommy Pigott

Episode Date: February 12, 2026

It’s been five weeks since the U.S. removed former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power. But the question on everyone's mind is what comes next now that Maduro is no longer in power.  State Department Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott joined “The Signal Sitdown” this week to discuss the plan to stabilize, recover, and transition power in Venezuela. Pigott explained the administration's phased approach to Venezuela.  "First, the stability of Venezuela. Second, the recovery, where you might see the beginnings of investment, in oil infrastructure, for example. Then the third phase being that transition to a longer-term situation where hopefully you have a reliable partner in the region." Follow us on Instagram for EXCLUSIVE bonus content and the chance to be featured in our episodes: https://www.instagram.com/problematicwomen/   Connect with our hosts on socials!   Elise McCue X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=EliseMcCue Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/elisemccueofficial/   Virginia Allen: X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=Virginia_Allen5 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/virginiaallenofficial/   Check out Top News in 10, hosted by The Daily Signal’s Tony Kinnett: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjMHBev3NsoUpc2Pzfk0n89cXWBqQltHY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

About five weeks ago now, the United States kidnapped the former Venezuelan president, Nicholas Maduro. By all accounts, from people who supported taking out Maduro to those vehemently against removing the Venezuelan strong man, the military operation was an astounding success. No Americans killed, minimal civilian casualties in and out in the span of hours. Maduro is now in a cell. I don't think many Americans thought this kind of U.S. military operation was possible. And you can hardly blame them for thinking that after what happened during the withdrawal in Afghanistan. So an amazing mission that just happened in Venezuela.

But the question has always been what comes after. Invading Iraq, conquering Afghanistan, that ended up being the easy part. What came after was where things went wrong. And what happened in Afghanistan, the two decades that followed the invasion, wouldn't be such a source of division in American foreign policy if we took our pound to flesh, got concessions, and got out. Iraq is obviously a different story. The last time we discussed Venezuela on this show was prior to Maduro's capture, and I outlined how the Trump administration was teeing this, whatever this is. Call it regime change, call it a law enforcement operation,

call it whatever you'd like, but they were teeing this up for some time. Maduro was offering them the farm, and the administration still said no. And the messaging was messaging was, confusing. At least that's what the American people thought. It's about drugs. No, it's about oil. No, it's about China. No, it's about Iran. Whoa, slow down. At the time, a CBSUGov poll found that 76% of Americans believed the administration needed to explain its positions on the use of force in Venezuela more. Public polling since the U.S. captured Maduro suggest those questions even among Republicans remain. Their concerns will go to foreign Venezuela. For example, According to a Reuters poll, an outright majority of Republicans are concerned we might get too involved.

And there are concerns about putting troops on the ground, having to invade. There are constitutional concerns. Congress's role versus the executive's role. The list goes on and on and on. And the administration has gone about trying to answer those questions in the five weeks since the operation. President Trump has hosted oil executives at the White House to discuss potential investment opportunities in the country of Venezuela. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared before his old Senate colleagues to testify in late January. The administration has outlined three phases of their Venezuela plan.

First, stability, second, recovery, third transition. When asked about a timeline, Rubio's told senators, quote, I can't give you a timeline of how long it takes. It can't take forever, I get it. We all want something immediately, but this is not a frozen dinner you put in a microwave and in two and a half minutes, it comes out ready to eat, end quote. I get it too.

I'm concerned about the time it takes to cook, definitely, but I'm more concerned about the recipe. So here are where things stand in Venezuela. Let's just clear the air. The country is currently being run by Maduro's vice president, Delci Rodriguez. She has now been sworn in as president of Venezuela. And so far, Rodriguez has managed to maintain the coalition needed to govern while cooperating with the Trump administration. The relationship between the military and civilian authorities seems tense, but stable. There are no U.S. troops or U.S. military contractors on the

ground or so the government says. So the Venezuelan military is predominantly responsible for the security functions of the state. And the paramilitary groups and the criminal organizations don't seem to be using this as an opportunity to flex their muscles yet, though that's a real concern. And geographically, this could really affect the critical industries in Venezuela that the Trump administration wants U.S. companies to invest in. And the Venezuelan government seems to be cooperating with the American authorities on drug enforcement, some prisoner releases, and some pretty major industry reforms, particularly reforms that will open up the oil industry for American firms. The U.S. government has rewarded this behavior by easing some of the sanctions,

again, mostly around oil, which allows American companies to do more oil business in the country of Venezuela if they wanted to infest. And they're also allowing oil cash flows to come into the country. And this has managed to stabilize the Venezuelan economy and Venezuela's currency. But Rodriguez is in a very difficult position. She needs to acquiesce to American demands and maintain her authority as a leader. If that coalition breaks up, it could get very ugly. So the challenge for America and American policymakers is to make sure that the demands they place on the Venezuelan government don't undermine stability, the first phase of this process. But can the administration manage to do that while creating the incentives for American companies, American oil companies, to invest in Venezuela?

While American oil companies were reticent to invest in Venezuela right after Maduro's capture, and that's because of a host of economic and political reasons, right? It's not very secure and price of oil is pretty low right now. But they're warming to the idea of investing in Venezuela and getting that really thick stuff out of the ground. But the oil companies want security guarantees. And it's hard to blame them for that, of course. But what kind of guarantees? What kind of U.S. presidents would that require? And the American people want answers on these three phases, stability, recovery, and transatlantic.

transition. How is this going to, it might not be a frozen dinner, but how is this going to look like? What's the recipe? And that's why this week's guest on the Signal Sitdown is State Department's Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Piggett. He gives us some answers and we hope you enjoy. Thank you so much for tuning into the Signal Sitdown, but before we get to the interview, we'd love it if you'd hit that like and subscribe button on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you may be joining us. And please remember to give us a five-star review because we love your feedback. Remember, it's your government, and together we'll expose how it really works and how to affect real change. Without further ado, here's the interview.

State Department Deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigget, welcome back to the Signal Sitdown and welcome back from Milan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. So you were just in Milan. Yep. The Olympics are happening. Yes. Team USA doing some awesome things. They are. They are.

Team figure skating, taking home the gold. We've got mixed – I didn't even know mixed doubles curling was something that we're good at now. What a match that was, though, right? I mean, I'm not really, I haven't watched that much curling. I can think when the Olympics come every four years, watch a good amount. But that was intense. I mean, that was a lot of fun watching that. Like, of course, it took a little while to get used to the vernacular that they use, you know, in terms of the button and things like that.

Like, I just thought an expert of that. But it was intense. It was a very good match. It was a lot of fun watching it. I don't know any of the rules, but I get what they're doing, right? It took a little while to get there. So you were received very hostily in Milan, right? everyone hated seeing you and the American delegation.

That's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. I can tell you, you know, had a Team USA gear, you know, a hat, a jersey, things that you can get when you're there. Walking around Milan, definitely not hostile. I mean, a lot of people chanting USA and not just Americans that were there. It was a very warm welcome that was received. And obviously, a lot of meetings that were happening. And, you know, I didn't sense that at all in terms of what people were saying.

Well, it was kind of funny. I saw a bunch of Italian influencers on Instagram comparing their opening. ceremony with the French opening ceremony from the Summer Olympics. And it was like, ours is so much more traditional. Of course, there's like some silly European modernism happening in the Italian opening ceremonies, but they're like leaning into the, this is traditional, this is Italian, we are in Milan. And I just thought it was, the whole thing was very funny. And if, you know, people did boo at the opening ceremonies, it's only because the United States is going to go in there and take as many medals as possible. Well, I mean, it's clear that we're doing it. We're going to resource distraction right now,

Well, I mean, it's, it's, yeah, I could say walking around, very warm reception was received. Team USA is obviously doing very well, some really key wins so far, hopefully more to come very shortly. So it was a great experience, and I think it was great to be there, the whole atmosphere to cheer on Team USA, nothing like the Olympics. Of course, though, it's a reminder of the sporting events that we have coming our way very shortly here, kind of a decade of American hosted sports. So I'm excited for that, too. the Olympics that we're hosting here, other international events that we're hosting here, really putting it on only like America can't. I think it's a good reminder that that's shortly around the corner too.

Yeah, FIFA World Cup too. A lot of lotteries that I need to submit my email to to try to get tickets to these things. But we got way more to talk about than just the Olympics. First, Venezuela, we're five weeks removed from the capture of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. The people who didn't like the operation and the people who loved the operation all said, oh my gosh, this was a successful operation from a military standpoint. But we're five weeks removed now. Where do things stand with Venezuela? Well, as the secretary and president have both said, there have been constructive conversations with the interim authorities. And really,

the national interests that have been described from the beginning of this administration have been the focus. We're talking about stopping the flow of deadly drugs into our country, talking about stopping the spread of gangs into our country, that we're leaving Venezuela under the illegitimate Maduro regime. being sent to the United States, talking about the oil revenue, which under the previous illegitimate regime was being used to feed this corrupt infrastructure and instead having a conversation now about having that oil revenue be used in a way that benefits the people of Venezuela and the United States. The president, of course, talking about some of those deals

that have been struck. So we're seeing those constructive conversations. As the secretary indicated, there's still a lot of work to be done. He's outlined a three-phase plan here when it comes to Venezuela. First, the stability of Venezuela. Second, the recovery, where you might see the beginnings of investment in oil infrastructure, for example, the return of some opposition figures. And then the third phase being that transition to a longer-term situation where hopefully you have a reliable partner in the region. So it's a long way to go, but a lot of progress has been made. And as the secretary indicated also recently, and hopefully every single day, every week, every month, we're making more progress. Does the United States view Delci Rodriguez's administration

as legitimate? I know a lot of the conversation has been around. Well, we don't view Maduro as a legitimate leader. This is actually a law enforcement operation that the military assisted with. So it seems like for now, Delcea Rodriguez has been a fairly good partner. There have been coordination on some drug seizures, for example. She has freed some political prisoners. She has recaptured others, right? She's managing a very difficult political coalition over there as well. But does the United States view her current authority is legitimate? Well, I think it comes down to, again, the national interest of the United States in the sense that there are key concerns we need to see addressed. And also that three-phase plan that we're talking about here. The first one being that

stability, as the secretary described during his hearing before Congress, there were some that were worried that we might see a huge flow of people out of Venezuela, another wave of mass migration, things like that. We haven't seen that. So we're focused on the national interest of the United States, and we need to have conversations with those in-term authorities in order to achieve the progress that we want to see. Again, a long way to go here. So this is, you know, phase one, two of that plan. We may see some of those phases overlap, but this is going to be a lot of work that goes into this, a lot of conversations that still need to happen. We've come a long way, a long way to go. And so we'll see where this progresses. Stability recovery transition,

as you lined out, as the secretary has lined out and the president has lined out. Let's talk about recovery. Restabilization of the Venezuelan economy was menu item number one for the United States and for the Venezuelans after this military operation. How did we manage to stabilize the Venezuelan economy? Well, look, I think, again, economic conversations are sort of broader, but you did have a situation where you need to meet payroll, for example, keeping certain services operating, right? So there have been conversations here in terms of oil deals that were made, for example. How could we see a situation where that revenue wasn't being used to go to a corrupt regime,

prop up a corrupt regime, and instead being used to benefit the people of Venezuela? So we've seen these conversations with the interim authorities and also actions that have been taking, such as that oil deal that we saw the millions of barrels that were released, the bi-American provisions of that oil deal to sort of see over these first or second phases here how we could see that stabilization in order to continue having those conversations to get to those longer-term solutions here. So again, it's an ongoing process here. This is not something that's going to be over many weeks here that we're seeing these

conversations continue, if not longer. But every single day we're making that progress. And hopefully we're able to have a different conversation in six months or five weeks from now as opposed to five weeks ago, right? Think of how far we've come in terms of that where we were five weeks ago. So those conversations continue, but that all you'll do was an important part of this, seeing that stabilization, those constructive conversations with the interim authorities, and finding ways that we can move forward here.

How often is the U.S. government in contact with the Venezuelans? And, you know, there's been talks about, well, we're running Venezuela, but we're not imposing ourselves there recently in the hearing that Rubio was in front of his former Senate colleagues. He said that Venezuela will be submitting budgets to the United States in order to make sure that they are provided the capital from a third party bank account from the oil sales, et cetera, et cetera, to just make sure, as you said, they make payroll and stuff like that. How frequent are those conversations? Are the Venezuelans bringing up coalition concerns of their own? Is it a give and take or is there, you know, is the U.S. being more heavy-handed in these types of negotiations? Well, look, there's a degree of conversations that are happening across.

different levels of government. We have a new director of our Venezuelan Affairs Unit, for example, who's had different conversations with the interim authorities there. So there's different conversations that are happening pretty regularly with the Venezuelan interim authorities. So what we really need to see here, though, again, going back to the focus on the national interest of the United States, that is where our focus is currently seeing that stability, that recovery, then that transition, but always going back to those concerns that the president, the secretary, have raised from the very beginning in terms of those illegal drugs that were flooding into United States, the gang members that were being sent from Venezuela's United States,

addressing those concerns are so key to this. And part of this phase one, phase two, as we then move forward to a phase three. So that's really part of what we're talking about here. And ultimately, when it comes to the money that's spent, we had a sanctions regime. We have a sanctions regime regarding oil from Venezuela. And what we're talking about here are agreements with the interim authorities there to see if some of that revenue can be released. We've seen discussions of this in order to meet certain conditions, such as payroll and other things. So we're talking about conversations that allow that stability to happen. And this is a very dynamic situation.

And so every single day, every single week, this changes. But we're hopefully making progress every single day. Yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of bullish expectations for the Venezuelan economy this year. It had turned around from, I think if you remember, you know, 2017, 2018, Caracas and just the videos that were coming out of their horrifying stuff. Even under the Maduro regime, the economy had somewhat turned around. in part because of the policies that Delci Rodriguez was pursuing. She was kind of his oils are as vice president. But then you look at, you know, the transition that has occurred in the last five weeks.

And a lot of people are bullish on the Venezuelan economy. They think that the bolivar is stabilized for the most part. So let's talk about that second part of this recovery. Recovery is going to, you know, the president has been very clear. He wants to see U.S. investment in the country. There are obstacles in the way of that, such as the sanctions regime. I know that this is predominantly something that Treasury has a hand in, but Treasury is often working with state on a lot of this stuff because it does involve the diplomatic functions of state. So where are we at right now?

You mentioned a little bit with the oil. Where are we at with the sanctions regime on Venezuela? Does the administration have plans to alleviate more sanctions or are those part of ongoing discussions? Yeah, we don't preview those announcements for a variety of reasons. So when we make those announcements, those will be made publicly. But what I can say going back to the question about running Venezuela or not is, as the Secretary is described, there's a series of levers that we have, one of them being that sanctions policy. And we're seeing how that lever can be used in a way, for example, with the deal that was made for oil in terms of buying America and seeing the revenue go to actually meet some needs there as opposed to fueling a corrupt regime.

So we have levers in place that can influence where this policy goes, always thinking back to the national interest of the United States. when it comes to that second phase, what we're really talking about there in many ways is that investment we're hopeful to see in terms of in the Venezuelan infrastructure. A lot of it is not functioning properly. A lot of it is degrading. A lot of it was infrastructure that they took in a lot of ways when it was built by Americans in many ways. But it hasn't been updated. It's not operating in any sort of main capacity in terms of what they're able to produce if it was a functioning oil infrastructure. So seeing that investment go in there that allows that infrastructure to be produced,

seeing more oil come out of that and having that investment from American companies. I mean, one of the ways that it's already benefiting Americans is the buy American provisions of the oil that was released in terms of the agreement to use that revenue to buy American in terms of American medicine and other things like that. So it's an ongoing discussion there, but that's part of that phase two, seeing companies go in there, invest. And hopefully, as Secretary says, we have a normal oil infrastructure, a normal oil industry in Venezuela.

That's the goal here is to have that normal operating system. part of what they were doing before when you had the sanctions regime is selling their oil at a very steep discount. So they were producing what oil they could, not at the capacity they're able to, but then selling it at a discount. So if you have a normal operating system, you actually could sell that oil at not a discount. So you could produce more of it, sell it at not a discount, see American investment that benefits the United States, benefits the people of Venezuela. So when we're looking at the reindustrialization or the renewal of Venezuela's oil industry, Trump had this meeting with a bunch of oil execs at the White House a few weeks back. And some oil execs expressed some concerns, right?

They want to see some security guarantees. I believe one of eight oil exec called it uninvestable. And then President Donald Trump, as he does so frequently on Air Force One, I think, cut back a little bit on the oil exec and said, I think they're playing a little too cute with this. This is an opportunity that they should take advantage of. But it was, you know, at least in the media, it was portrayed as the oil industry. in the United States and the administration and the administration's hopes and plans for Venezuela be on different pages. Have you seen oil companies and oil executives warm to the idea of investing in Venezuela in recent weeks? Well, the president's talked about that. There is a lot

of enthusiasm to see what's possible here. And that's what we're talking about in terms of the stability and the recovery. A lot of potential, a lot of opportunity, a lot of investment that can happen to improve the capacity of the oil industry there. So there's a lot of conversations that are happening and like I said, a lot of enthusiasm to get this happen. I'll let different oil executives speak for themselves, but as the president's made clear, there is a lot of enthusiasm to see this move forward. And again, we've made a lot of progress. We've made a lot of progress. So I can't put a timeline on exactly when that'll happen or not. I mean, I'm not going to predict the future here, but what I can say is hopefully we see even more progress than the next five

weeks and the five weeks after that. And we've already come a long way, but there is a long way to go. On the security guarantees front, what is the security situation right now in Venezuela? because the U.S. government has repeatedly said that there are no troops on the ground at Venezuela. The Venezuelan military remains in alliance with the civilian leadership of Delci Rodriguez, right? There's always that type of tension in Latin American countries, in Middle Eastern countries and countries who are generally thought of as second or third world countries. But military, still in alignment with Delsi Rodriguez. The military is predominantly heading up security.

But as we learn from the Maduro operation, there were Cuba. military units there trying to defend President Maduro. Of course, in this bad neighborhood, in this, you know, kind of difficult, corrupt coalition, you have paramilitary groups, you have criminal gangs that are involved in, you know, whether it's Colombian gangs that are on the western side of the country or other criminal gangs that are on the eastern side of the country. I mean, without U.S. troops there, and there's been no reports of contractors as well. I should add that. What does the security situation look like? How do you go to these oil companies and say, hey, we're glad that you're enthusiastic about this. These are the reasonable

expectations for the security standpoint or the security viewpoint in Venezuela right now. Well, that gets into some sensitive topics there. But again, with the secretary. How is this? Yeah. So, I mean, I think from the Cuba example, for example, Secretary has talked about this, the linking between the Cuban regime and the Maduro regime. He's talked about that before, talked about how you had Cuban, quote unquote, security personnel guarding Maduro, and how it's clear that since the fall of the illegitimate Maduro regime, since he was brought to face American justice, you've had the Cuban regime losing an ally there. There was that relationship between the Cuban regime and the illegitimate Maduro regime.

Look, there's a long way to go here. That's why that stability is so important here in terms of that first phase, seeing that stability, seeing that investment and recovery. Secretary also making clear that, you know, what we're talking about here is hopefully we're not seeing, there's a whole range of options that the president has, but what we're seeing is constructive conversations moving forward. So again, hopeful for that progress. Hopefully every day we see progress being made. But there is work to be done, and no one's denying that. Some people in this town, lots of them, neocons, not all of them neocons, I shouldn't say that, but there are lots of neocons, kind of pushing for Machado as Venezuela's future. And this, I guess, we're particularly.

talking about the third phase, the transition phase. But reports from multiple outlets said that there were conversations between the U.S. government and Machado, and she didn't have the support. She didn't have the vision or the plans in place in order to be a reasonable leader of Venezuela in this kind of critical phase. A lot of people have condemned the United States for not trying to put her in charge of Venezuela after Maduro's ousting. I'm talking about Machado, not Rodriguez. They were condemning the United States for not putting Machado in power. Why do you think that is? Like, why are people pushing for Machado when the assessment was fairly clear that this person did not have the plans ready to go to govern Venezuela on day one?

Well, I don't want to necessarily speak for others' motivations or what they might be thinking inside their heads. But I think ultimately, as the secretaries make clear, so we have these levers of power, that these levels of influence policies in place that can direct the policy here. But if you're thinking long term, it will be up to the Venezuelan people to transform their country, that no one is denying that either. The Venezuelan people, in terms of we're talking about that transition, will be up to them to see how the longer term sort of scenario here. So we have the ability to influence policy, move it in the direction we want to see defend our national interests. But as the thing is obvious to everybody, including the

secretary and president who have said this, it's going to be up to the Venezuelan people to make that decision when it comes to that third transition. So, you know, the president has met with Machado, so as the secretary, the president has said many warm things about Machado, but ultimately we're focused here on the challenges in front of us, having those constructive conversations with the interim authorities, seeing the progress we need to make. And again, to stress, as we've said, where we are versus where we were five weeks ago, I mean, the tremendous progress has been made a huge change has been made. And we're hopeful that we're going to continue. seeing progress as we have these constructive conversations as we move forward through these phases.

Always focus on the national interests of the United States that have been so clearly outlined by the president. So Rubio said in a hearing recently that this situation in Venezuela, it's not a microwave dinner, which I thought was a very good turn of phrase by the secretary. As we talked about this third phase transition, I mean, where does this go from here for the folks back home who say, you know, I'm an American. I've lived all my life not really worried about Venezuelan influence. What are the long-term national interests for the United States in Venezuela?

Where does this go from here? Well, I think the long-term interests go back to the two main national interests. And there are others here, but that have been so articulated by the president, the gangs that were coming against the United States, the crimes that they were committing, some vicious, vicious, vicious gangs that were operating in conjunction with the illegitimate Maduro regime, very much. linked with them. You also had the flow of deadly drugs coming into our country. I mean, we have cooperation with countries across our region in terms of designation of narco-terrorists stopping the flow of these drugs. What you had with the illegitimate Maduro regime was a regime that was cooperating with the narco-terrorists, helping them in many ways to poison the American people, to poison the American people, the leading cause of death for Americans, aged 18 to 45,

being overdoses fueled by the illicit fentanyl trade. So we're seeing, so Venezuela, we're taking, here that was taken to bring that indicted narco-terrorist and Maduro to justice. We're also seeing designation of cartels across our region. So the long-term interest of the United States is to see a fair and stable Venezuela. The secretary said that in his hearing as we move forward we'll have those conversations to get there. But it's also directly linked to the impacts on the American people, the

gangs and the crime that they were fueling, the mass migration we saw under the previous administration, the fact that illicit drugs pouring into our country, the president has taken steps to stop all of that. The border is the most secure it's ever been. We see see illicit drugs coming by boat down over 90% down close to 100% to the president started taking actions concrete actions that have saved American lives saved American lives because of the president so you're absolutely right about the viciousness of the Venezuelan gangs and the crimes

that they commit in the United States trend day oraga operates out of many many different localities in the United States but it's not like a problem on the scale of what you would say like the Mexican cartels are and and some of these other cartels operating in the United States. I'm glad to see the administration attacking the operations of those cartels. But what does that mean for a Columbia or a Mexico, which is far more involved in the drug trade? Not denying that Venezuela is involved in the drug trade, it is, but to a lesser degree than Colombia, which we have pretty good mill-to-mill relationships with, and Mexico, who we are currently negotiating a new trade deal with and has long been considered a, you know, a troublesome ally.

I guess if you want to call it that, no treaty obligation necessarily for defense of Mexico or anything like that. There are trade agreements. But what does it mean for a Mexico or a Columbia? What type of message is this administration trying to send? Well, I think the message is clear that we are going to stop the flow of deadly drugs into our country. That is the message from this president. One of the first actions that he took as president was to levy tariffs in order to stop the flow of fentanyl. Fentanyl-related tariffs in order to see more action to stop that.

This is an across-the-board government approach to address this drug trade, including agreements to address the precursors of fentanyl that come from China, for example. You see agreements to address those. So we're seeing the designation of narco-terrorists across our region. You're seeing the cooperation with countries across our region. The illegitimate reserve regime was cooperating with the narco-terrorist instead. He was a narco-terrorist and indicted narco-terrorist. He is a narco-terrorist.

He's facing American justice. We need to see more action across our entire region in order to stop this flow of deadly drugs. The president's been clear on that. It's a priority. He's already saved so many American lives through the actions he's taken, and he's clear. He's going to keep on going until we can stop the flow of these deadly drugs, keep on going in terms of the policies necessary, whether it's those designations, whether it's further cooperation with countries across our region, whether it's further agreements to address the precursors. The president has taken unprecedented action. He promised to go after the cartels. He promised to decimate the cartels. He's living up to

that promise. He's going after these narco-terrorists and protecting the American people. So people are calling it the Don Roe Doctrine, everything that you just laid out, to no surprise at all. We have taken an old thing, the Monroe Doctrine, and rebranded it, Donald Trump. He's very good at it. But it's different than the Monroe Doctrine, where the Monroe Doctrine was more focused about foreign powers coming into our hemisphere. Of course, there's elements of that with Venezuela. Don't deny that. But there are foreign powers trying to get involved in Mexico.

There's foreign powers involved in Colombia. There's foreign powers trying to play in our hemisphere quite a lot. The United States under this Trump administration has worked to remove them and kick them out. But the Donroe Doctrine, if I could summarize it, it's Monroe Doctrine Plus. It's saying not only is it sufficient for us to remove the foreign powers and their influence in our hemisphere, but also restructure our relationships with countries in our near abroad to ensure. the American people's safety. That's kind of the next level that Donald Trump's administration seems to be adding to the Monroe Doctrine. So if you could summarize it for us, I mean,

what are the key tenets, the key pillars of the Donro Doctrine? What motivates it? You know, you mentioned the national interest. What specific parts of the national interests are most important? Well, I think it's that leadership is back in our hemisphere. We're not to ignore where we live. We live here. We need to take our security here seriously. And I think the president, putting it very succinctly, said, stop sending people and things into our country that are killing our people. I mean, that's pretty basic. And that requires these efforts that we've seen to secure the border. That requires the leadership.

I mean, the secretary, from the beginning of his time, a secretary has traveled to the Western Hemisphere in terms of our neighbors many, many times, many times. That's not even counting the conversations he's had with them over the phone or whatever have you. But multiple trips to countries throughout our hemisphere to stress this. You mentioned the foreign powers coming into our hemisphere. Under the Maduro regime, you saw it as a staging point for Iran to come into our hemisphere, for example, which is unacceptable to threaten American interests so close to home. So ultimately, it's about looking at where we live, looking at our home and saying, leadership is back here. Leadership is back here. We're not going to ignore our hemisphere.

Instead, we're going to lead in our hemisphere. We're going to work with our neighbors to address the threats that we all face. Mass migration is a perfect example of this. You had huge mass migration that, of course, affected the United States in all of the ways that have been described by the president. But it also destabilized every single country across this migration route, every single one. It allowed these cartels to flow. You see the spread of these cartels that in some cases have the capabilities of the nation states that they're in, which is a huge threat. A huge threat needs to be addressed in our own hemisphere.

So the Donnera doctrine is saying, we are taking security in our hemisphere seriously. We're going to stop the flow of deadly people and drugs into our country that are killing our people. we're going to lead in our hemisphere. So it's migration. It's trade and investment. And I guess the third that I would potentially add to that is resources. Natural resources are critically important to this administration. I think a lot of people around this town are somewhat less concerned about the resources now

than they were, say, two years ago because of the investments and because of the policy changes that Trump administration has made. They're actually more concerned about infrastructure, right? where if you look at China's energy grid, they're devoting 80% of it to industrial, 20% of it to, you know, end user homes and stuff like that. Part of that's because a lot of people don't have lights on in China. Another part of it is they want to invest in that type of capacity, whereas the U.S. grid, I think, is more split 50-50 between the entire of industrial and the private homes usage. But all that is to say, like resources remain critical. important, and there's a lot of focus in particular right now on critical minerals. This is something

that the Vice President and Secretary Rubio have really been paying attention to in the last few weeks talking about this issue. So tell us, where do things stand on the critical minerals front as the United States looks to compete with China in this, you know, AI future? Well, critical minerals hugely important. We just had a critical minerals ministerial, the first one of its kind held at the State Department. Say that five times fast. I know, right? But, uh, I think I got through it successfully that one time. Yeah, you did. Critical minerals ministerial.

I was avoiding that phrase. I was like, I'm not going to say that. This is a recipe for disaster. I mean, it was a great success. I mean, we had 55 countries represented at that ministerial. And really, it's about addressing supply chains that have a single point of failure. I mean, we just can't have that. So it's not about the United States controlling this whole market or anything like that.

It's working with other countries so we can all have supply chains that are not so reliant or could fall victim to a single point of failure. And that is both in the minerals themselves in terms of the mining of those minerals, but also in the processing of them to make it usable. So having conversations at this ministerial, but also it's come up in meetings really across the world the secretary has had. And in many of the agreements that the president has struck across our world as well with different countries. So it's about changing our supply chains, having secure supply chains that are so important for these critical minerals that are, to reuse the word, critical to our economy. It's something that this administration is taking incredibly seriously. We've seen progress in terms of the agreements, and we're seeing even further progress every single day, especially following this ministerial.

Massive rehaul is kind of the theme whenever you and I get together and do this podcast. Last time we talked about the massive overhaul of the State Department, its internal organizational structure, and the overhaul of USAID. Now, you're back on the show, and the State Department is in the middle of a massive overhaul or review of the visa system. 75 different countries paused at the moment as the State Department goes to this review. First, what prompted this?

So there's basically, when you think of border security, you think of the Southwest border, naturally, but visa security is an important part of border security. That's who we're letting into our country. Sounds obvious to say, but in many ways was ignored by the previous administration. You had the previous administration having policies in place that encouraged mass migration,

and that includes with the visa policy, includes with the refugee cap policy that they had, it includes their policies at the border. So when we're looking at our visa policy, we're making sure that we're living up to the standard that every single visa decision is a national security decision. And that takes many different elements.

That means do we have the vetting procedures in place in order to properly vet people? Some countries, we have a limited ability to screen people. So you're seeing a pause on some of those countries to say, we can't properly vet someone from that country. We're not going to let them in. Case-by-case exceptions apply, but that's as a general rule.

You also have issues of overstays. We have a visa bond policy that from certain countries, many of which have high overstay rates, someone that's coming from that country needs to put up a bond of up to $15,000. They get that money back when they go back home. We've seen overstay rates from those countries where that's been applied plummet to down near zero since that policy's been applied. We also see when you're talking about the 75 countries

when it comes to immigrant visas, which is what that applies to, these immigrant visas, if we're having nationals from those countries that when they come to the United States are expecting taxpayers, to foot the bill or rely on cash benefits at very high rates, we need to figure out what's going on there. We need to make sure that when people come to the United States, they're not expecting the American people to foot the bill, that they're not becoming what's called a public charge. That's actually a longstanding authority. We've had for close to 100 years. It's just that

this administration is taking that seriously. So we're making sure we have the vetting standards in place. We're making sure that every visa decision is a national security decision. And we're making sure that people when they come here aren't relying on cash-based assistance, aren't becoming a public charge of the United States aren't expecting the American taxpayer to foot the bill. I think all of that is pretty common sense. And then you're also seeing on top of those visa vetting standards issues to look at social media, for example, when it comes to several of these different visas, making sure that a whole range of different categories of visas, that for each one of those categories, we have the vetting system in place to properly vet each one of those categories,

again, living up to the national security standard. So when you use the magic words, those two magic words, public charge. Obviously, this comes on the heels of massive fraud revelations coming out of Minnesota and Somali community there. Also, 24 election, you know, everybody remembers the dogs and cats line from the debate, but even worse than whatever the certain dietary proclivities of the immigrant population was there, was the fact that the New York Times was reporting social programs and public benefits were just being overrun. Like they struggled to get police presence, struggled to get seen in an emergency room. I mean, these are real problems that affect real people back at home.

When we look at the public charge authority that's been in place, as you said, for over 100 years, I mean, what did you guys inherit? Was the Biden administration doing any of this whatsoever? Is this something that we've learned? left by the wayside for longer than just the Biden administration? Has it been from Obama and Bush and before that? Like, why, why hasn't, why doesn't every American know this term when they're talking about immigration? We know the term overstay with respect to these visas, but we don't know the term public charge. I mean, what did you guys inherit? I think it, you inherited a broad system

where you had hundreds of thousands of people legally entering based of the rules that they applied the United States under refugees or whatever have you, an abuse of our immigration system under the previous administration, an abuse of our refugee system under the previous administration. We have put that to an end. That was on top of the unprecedented border crisis that we saw. So in addition to those millions of people that were crossing the border, hundreds of thousands of people and this abuse of the immigration system and refugee system we saw another previous administration, putting that to an end has been incredibly important. And part of that has been that public charge. So we inherited a situation where, you know,

you had policies in the previous administration that were encouraging mass migration. And you also had NGOs, for example, that were also encouraging mass migration. That's part of the other policies that we took, stopping not giving money to the corrupt NGO industrial complex that was encouraging mass migration or wanted to see us adopt policies that had mass migration. You cannot have hundreds of thousands of people entering your country under a short period of time and expect that not to be destabilizing. It inherently is.

You can't expect to be vetting those people. You can't account for all those people. Just such a huge number of people. So we're putting an end to that. We're making sure that we have an America first visa policy. And I think it's common sense. I think most people when you explain this to them, that we shouldn't have people coming to our country,

that them rely on cash-based public assistance, taxpayer-funded assistance. They would say, of course we shouldn't have people coming to our... I think it's pretty common sense. I think it just took President Trump to identify this problem and take concrete action to address it, to stop the policies that were in place on the previous administration, the error of

mass migration, and bring that error of mass migration to an end. So I know we're short on time here, but pause started officially on January 21st. We're in the process of this massive review of the visa system. How do the American people stay updated on your guys' progress? When do we expect to hear more news on how this problem is being fixed? Well, so it'll be announced as we go through this process, but there are many different elements here. So for example, the 75 countries is that temporary pause on immigrant visas, so people that want to immigrate to United States. We also have a pause on some countries for visas in general regarding those security concerns. Do we have the ability to vet them? So this is an ongoing process, and

we're going to make sure we do this right. That is the driving goal here, not an artificial timeline, but we're going to make sure we do this right that we live up to our commitment to the American people. Tommy Piggin, thank you for coming on the Signal Sitdown. Thanks for having me on. Thank you so much for tuning into the Signal Sitdown. Before you go, be sure to hit like and subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you may be joining us. And please remember to give us a five-star review. We not only love your feedback, but it really does help the show. Remember, it's your government, and together we'll expose how it really works.

See you next time.