A viral story from a man claiming to have witnessed the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro states that the U.S. used sonic weapons during the mission to incapacitate opposing forces.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the eyewitness interview on X, encouraging her followers to read the statement. The witness in the interview claims to be a guard who was serving at the Caracas military base where the U.S. captured Maduro.

‘We were on guard, but suddenly all our radar systems shut down without any explanation,’ the witness said. ‘The next thing we saw were drones, a lot of drones, flying over our positions. We didn’t know how to react.’

The witness then described watching roughly 20 U.S. soldiers deploy out of roughly eight helicopters over the base.

‘They were technologically very advanced,’ the guard said. ‘They didn’t look like anything we’ve fought against before.’

‘We were hundreds, but we had no chance,’ he said. ‘They were shooting with such precision and speed; it felt like each soldier was firing 300 rounds per minute.’

The witness then describes the U.S. deploying some sort of sonic weapon against Venezuelan forces.

‘At one point, they launched something; I don’t know how to describe it,’ he said. ‘It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside.’

‘We all started bleeding from the nose,’ he added. ‘Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move. We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon — or whatever it was.’

‘Those twenty men, without a single casualty, killed hundreds of us,’ the witness claimed. ‘We had no way to compete with their technology, with their weapons. I swear, I’ve never seen anything like it.’

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital when asked whether Leavitt’s sharing of the post constituted confirmation of its veracity. The Pentagon also did not immediately respond when asked if the U.S. deployed sonic or energy weapons in Venezuela.

President Donald Trump reacted to a social media post joking about Secretary of State Marco Rubio becoming the president of Cuba, replying, ‘Sounds good to me.’

Trump posted the response Sunday on his Truth Social account after a user wrote, ‘Marco Rubio will be president of Cuba.’

Rubio’s broad portfolio in the Trump administration has fueled online jokes portraying him as being placed in charge of an ever-expanding list of roles.

Officially, he serves as secretary of state, national security advisor, and acting archivist of the United States.

He also previously served as acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, before the agency’s remaining functions were discontinued or absorbed into the State Department as part of a reorganization finalized in July.

Social media users on X have turned a photo of Rubio from a White House meeting into a viral ‘realizing’ meme, joking that his growing responsibilities make him the administration’s go-to official for a widening range of positions.

Users have posted AI-generated photos of Rubio that depict him in a range of imagined roles, from the Shah of Iran and the president of Venezuela to the manager of Manchester United.

Rubio has leaned into the humor himself, writing on X last week that he wouldn’t be a candidate for the vacant head coach or general manager positions with the Miami Dolphins.

‘While you never know what the future may bring right now my focus must remain on global events and also the precious archives of the United States of America,’ he wrote.

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key parts of an executive order that sought to change how states administer federal elections, ruling the president lacked authority to apply those provisions to Washington and Oregon.

U.S. District Judge John Chun held that several provisions of Executive Order 14248 violated the separation of powers and exceeded the president’s authority.

‘As stated by the Supreme Court, although the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, ‘[i]n the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,’’ Chun wrote in his 75-page ruling.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital in a statement: ‘President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the Administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.’

Washington and Oregon filed a lawsuit in April contending the executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March violated the Constitution by attempting to set rules for how states conduct elections, including ballot counting, voter registration and voting equipment.

‘Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,’ Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in response to the Jan. 9 ruling, according to The Associated Press. ‘The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.’

Executive Order 14248 directed federal agencies to require documentary proof of citizenship on federal voter registration forms and sought to require that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day in order to be counted.

The order also instructed the attorney general to take enforcement action against states that include such ballots in their final vote tallies if they arrive after that deadline.

‘We oppose requirements that suppress eligible voters and will continue to advocate for inclusive and equitable access to registration while protecting the integrity of the process. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted,’ said Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs in a statement issued when the lawsuit was filed last year.

‘We will work with the Washington Attorney General’s Office to defend our constitutional authority and ensure Washington’s elections remain secure, fair, and accessible,’ Hobbs added.

Chun noted in his ruling that Washington and Oregon do not certify election results on Election Day, a practice shared by every U.S. state and territory, which allows them to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots were postmarked on or before that day and arrived before certification under state law.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday spoke out against President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran, warning that such an attack may backfire as the U.S. government monitors the Middle Eastern country’s response to widespread protests.

During an appearance on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Paul said he is unsure that striking Iran ‘will have the effect that is intended.’

‘I don’t think I have ever heard a president say they may take military action to protect protesters,’ Paul said. ‘Certainly, with Soleimani, when the Trump administration hit him, there were massive protests against America. But they are shouting ‘death to the Ayatollah.”

‘We wish them the best,’ he added. ‘We wish freedom and liberation the best across the world, but I don’t think it’s the job of the American government to be involved with every freedom movement around the world.’

Paul also stressed concern about how the Trump administration would distinguish Iranian protesters from law enforcement if the president were to seek military action.

‘How do you drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd or a protest and protect the people there?’ Paul asked.

The Republican lawmaker also warned that attacking Iran may unintentionally rally protesters behind the Ayatollah.

‘If you bomb the government, do you then rally people to their flag who are upset with the Ayatollah, but then say, ‘Well, gosh, we can’t have a foreign government invading or bombing our country?” Paul said.

‘It tends to have people rally to the cause,’ he continued. ‘So, I think the protests are directed at the Ayatollah, justifiably so.’

Paul added: ‘The best way is to encourage them and say that, of course, we would recognize a government that is a freedom-loving government that allows free elections, but bombing is not the answer.’

The liberty-minded senator also affirmed that presidents cannot strike other countries without the approval of Congress.

‘There is this sticking point of the Constitution that we won’t let presidents bomb countries just when they feel like it,’ Paul emphasized. ‘They’re supposed to ask the people, through the Congress, for permission.’

Protests erupted in Iran in recent weeks over the country’s economic free fall, and many have begun to demand total regime change as the demonstrations continue.

Thousands have been arrested, according to reports. Agencies have been unable to confirm the total death toll because of an internet blackout as the country’s leaders seek to quell the dissent, but The Associated Press reported that more than 500 were killed.

Trump warned Iranian leaders on Friday that they ‘better not start shooting, because we’ll start shooting, too.’

‘Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Paul has opposed Trump in various instances in recent months when it has come to military strikes, including against Iran and Venezuela.

He helped the Senate advance a resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture its president, Nicolás Maduro, which the Kentucky Republican said amounts to war.

‘I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is, by all definitions, war,’ Paul told reporters before the vote last week. ‘Does this mean we have carte blanche that the president can make the decision any time, anywhere, to invade a foreign country and remove people that we’ve accused of a crime?’

Paul has also criticized the administration’s military strikes on boats near Venezuela it accuses, without evidence, of carrying narco-terrorists, raising concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people. The senator previously cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded on suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

Iran is not merely experiencing another wave of street protests. It is facing a crisis that strikes at the core of the Islamic Republic—and, for the first time in years, places the regime’s survival in real doubt.

Across Iran, demonstrations sparked by economic collapse and corruption have rapidly transformed into direct challenges to clerical rule. Security forces have responded with live fire, mass arrests, and communications blackouts. International reporting cites hundreds of people killed and thousands detained. Internet shutdowns point to a regime determined to suppress not only dissent, but proof of it.

Iran has behaved this way before. What has changed is the strategic environment—and the growing sense among Iranians that the system itself is failing.

Still, one must be clear-eyed: Iran’s leaders will not go quietly. They do not see themselves as ordinary autocrats clinging to power. In their own theology, they see themselves as executing Allah’s will.

A Regime That Sees Repression as Divine Duty

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has framed its authority through velayat-e faqih—the rule of the Islamic jurist. Under this doctrine, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not simply a political figure. He is the guardian of an Islamic revolution believed to be divinely sanctioned.

That theological worldview directly shapes how the regime responds to dissent. When Iranian security forces fire into crowds, the regime does not see itself as suppressing political opposition; it sees itself as crushing heresy, sedition, and rebellion against God’s order. Protesters are routinely labeled ‘corrupt on earth,’ a Quranic phrase historically used to justify severe punishment.

Public condemnation and moral appeals alone will not move Tehran. Its rulers believe endurance, sacrifice, and violence are virtues—especially when used to preserve the revolution.

Even regimes driven by religious certainty can collapse once their power structures fracture.

Why this moment differs from 2009—or 2022

Iran has seen mass protests before. In 2009, the Green Movement threatened the regime after a disputed election. In 2022, nationwide protests erupted following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman who died in morality-police custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s hijab rules. Each time, the regime survived.

Several factors suggest this moment is different.

First, the economy is far worse. Iran faces sustained currency devaluation, unemployment, and inflation that has crushed the middle class and hollowed out state legitimacy. That pressure is compounded by a deepening water crisis that has crippled agriculture, strained urban life, and fueled unrest in multiple provinces. Economic despair is no longer peripheral; it now sits at the center.

Beyond economics, Iran’s external deterrence has eroded. The war with Israel in 2025 inflicted real damage. Senior Iranian commanders were killed. Air defenses were penetrated. Missile and drone infrastructure was disrupted. Iran’s aura of invulnerability—carefully cultivated over decades—was badly shaken.

At the same time, Iran’s proxy network is under strain. Hamas has been devastated. Hezbollah has suffered significant losses and now faces domestic pressure in Lebanon. The Houthis remain disruptive but isolated. Tehran’s so-called ‘axis of resistance’ looks less like an unstoppable force and more like a series of costly liabilities.

Most importantly, the regime’s coercive apparatus is under stress. And this is where the future of Iran will be decided.

Watch the IRGC and the Basij—the outcome may hinge on their choices

No institutions matter more right now than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its paramilitary arm, the Basij.

Often described as the regime’s ‘eyes and ears,’ the Basij are not a conventional military force but a nationwide population-control and internal surveillance network. Embedded in neighborhoods, universities, factories, and mosques, they monitor dissent, identify protest organizers, and move quickly to intimidate or detain them—often before demonstrations can spread. 

During past unrest, including the 2009 Green Movement and the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, Basij units played a central role in suppressing resistance through beatings, arrests, and close coordination with IRGC security forces. Their value to the regime lies not in battlefield strength, but in omnipresence and ideological loyalty.

Their mission is to control dissent at the local level—before it becomes national. As long as the Basij remain loyal and effective in towns, neighborhoods, and campuses, the regime can contain unrest. If they hesitate, defect, or stand aside, Tehran’s grip weakens rapidly.

The Basij are the real instrument of population control. If the regime is forced to deploy the IRGC widely for internal order, it signals that local control has failed—and that the system is under far greater strain.

The Trump administration should be careful not to hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The IRGC, by contrast, controls the military and functions as an economic empire. Beyond internal security, the IRGC also shapes Iran’s foreign policy—overseeing missile forces, regional proxies, and external operations. It exists to defend the revolution abroad, while the Basij exists to control society at home.

Over the past three decades, the IRGC has embedded itself in Iran’s most important industries—energy, construction, telecommunications, transportation, ports, and black-market finance. Entire sectors of the Iranian economy now depend on IRGC-controlled firms and foundations.

This creates a decisive tension. On one hand, the IRGC has every reason to defend the regime that enriched it. On the other, prolonged instability, sanctions, and economic collapse threaten the very assets the Guards control. At some point, self-preservation may begin to compete with ideological loyalty.

That is why Iran’s future may depend less on what protesters do in the streets—and more on whom the IRGC ultimately chooses to back.

Three outcomes appear plausible.

The first is repression. The Basij could maintain local control while the IRGC backs the Supreme Leader, allowing the regime to crush dissent, and impose order through overwhelming force. This would preserve the Islamic Republic, but at the cost of deeper isolation and long-term decay.

The second is continuity without clerical dominance. A ‘soft coup’ could sideline aging clerics in favor of a military-nationalist leadership that preserves core power structures while shedding the regime’s most unpopular religious figures. The system would remain authoritarian—but altered.

The third is fracture. If parts of the Basij splinter or stand aside—and the IRGC hesitates to intervene broadly—the regime’s internal control could unravel quickly. This is the least likely outcome, but the most transformative—and the one most favorable to long-term regional stability.

Revolutions tend to succeed not because crowds grow larger, but because security forces eventually stop obeying orders.

America’s strategic objective: clarity without ownership

The United States must be disciplined about its goal.

America should not seek to ‘run Iran,’ redraw its culture, or impose a leader. That approach has failed elsewhere. But neither should Washington pretend neutrality between an abusive theocracy and a population demanding dignity.

Our strategy is clear:

Prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

End Iran’s export of terrorism and proxy war.

Push Iran toward regional stability rather than disruption.

Encourage a government that derives legitimacy from its people, not coercion.

Achieving that outcome requires pressure without provocation.

What the Trump administration and allies should do now

First, expose repression relentlessly. Iran’s internet blackouts are a weapon. The U.S. and allies should support every lawful means of keeping Iranians connected and atrocities visible.

Second, target the regime’s enforcers—not the public. Sanctions should focus on specific IRGC units, Basij commanders, judges, and security officials responsible for killings and mass arrests. Collective punishment only strengthens regime propaganda.

Third, signal consequences—and off-ramps. Those ordering violence must know they will be held accountable. Those who refuse unlawful orders should know the world is watching—and remembering.

Fourth, deter external escalation. Tehran may try to unify the nation through confrontation abroad. Strong regional missile defense, maritime security, and allied coordination reduce the regime’s ability to change the subject with war.

Finally, do not hand Tehran the propaganda victory it wants. Loud declarations about regime change from Washington risk delegitimizing Iranian voices. Support the people. Isolate the killers. Let the regime own its crimes.

The bottom line

Iran’s rulers believe they are carrying out divine will. That makes them dangerous—and stubborn. But it does not make them immortal.

Every revolutionary regime eventually faces a moment when fear stops working, money runs out, and loyalty fractures. Iran may be approaching that moment now.

The outcome will not be decided by speeches in Washington, but by choices in Tehran—especially inside the IRGC.

If the Guards conclude their future lies with the people rather than the clerics, Iran could finally turn a page. If they do not, repression will prevail—for a time.

America’s task is not to force history, but to shape the conditions under which it unfolds—with care, strategy, and moral clarity.

Because when the Islamic Republic finally faces its reckoning, the world must be ready—not to occupy Iran, but to ensure that what replaces the tyranny is not simply the same regime in a different uniform.

The Trump administration’s renewed interest in tapping Venezuela’s mineral reserves could carry with it ‘serious risk,’ an expert on illicit economies has warned in the wake of the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

A day after the U.S. military captured Maduro in Caracas, Trump administration officials highlighted their interest in the country’s critical mineral potential.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Jan. 4, ‘You have steel, you have minerals, all the critical minerals. They have a great mining history that’s gone rusty,’ he said aboard Air Force One alongside President Donald Trump.

Lutnick also said that Trump ‘is going to fix it and bring it back – for the Venezuelans.’

‘Venezuela’s gold, critical mineral and rare earth potential is substantial, which makes mining resources very much on the menu for Trump,’ Bram Ebus told Fox News Digital.

‘But this illicit economy involves extreme violence,’ he said, before describing abuses that include forced labor, criminal control of mining zones and punishments such as ‘hands being cut off for theft.’

Ebus cautioned that without strict safeguards, transparency and security, Trump’s efforts to tap Venezuela’s mineral wealth could entangle the U.S. in criminal networks.

‘The sector is already dominated by transnational crime syndicates, deeply implicated in human rights abuses, and intertwined with Chinese corporate interests,’ Ebus, the founder of Amazon Underworld, a research collective covering organized crime, said. ‘If corporations or foreign private security firms were to become directly involved in mining in Venezuela’s Amazon region, the situation could deteriorate rapidly and violently.’

Despite the renewed focus on oil and mineral wealth, ‘when it comes to mining, the situation is more complex than oil,’ Ebus added. ‘The illicit extraction of gold, tungsten, tantalum, and rare earth elements is largely controlled by Colombian guerrilla organizations, often working in collaboration with corrupt Venezuelan state security forces. Much of this output currently ends up in China.’

Ebus also described dire conditions inside mining zones. ‘Mining districts are effectively run by criminal governance,’ he explained. ‘Armed groups decide who can enter or leave an area, tax legal and illegal economic activity, and enforce their own form of justice.’ He also described how ‘punishments for breaking rules can include expulsion, beatings, torture or death.’

‘We have documented summary executions, decapitations, and severe physical mutilation, such as hands being cut off for theft,’ he added. ‘Sexual exploitation, forced labor, and torture are widespread with crimes not limited to non-state actors.’ 

He also noted that ‘Venezuelan state forces, including the army, National Guard, and intelligence services are deeply involved and work in direct collaboration with organized crime groups.’

Ebus described how Colombia’s largest guerrilla organizations, including the ELN and factions such as the Segunda Marquetalia, along with Venezuelan organized crime groups operating locally – or ‘sistemas’ – dominate illegal mining operations, noting that ‘there are at least five major ‘sindicatos’ operating across Bolívar state alone.’

‘Together, all these actors make up the core criminal panorama of Venezuela’s mining sector,’ Ebus added.

In 2016, Maduro established the Orinoco Mining Arc, a 111,843-square-kilometer zone rich in gold, diamonds, coltan and other minerals.

The area has since become synonymous with illicit mining and corrupt officials.

In 2019, the U.S. sanctioned Venezuelan gold exports with at least 86% of the country’s gold reportedly being produced illegally and often controlled by criminal gangs.

However, from a U.S. perspective, Ebus said, the objective behind critical minerals could be limiting China’s access.

‘With gold prices expected to peak around 2026, access to gold represents a major benefit for national economies and government investment stability,’ he said. ‘Beyond gold, controlling critical mineral supply chains offers enormous geopolitical leverage for the U.S., especially if it allows it to deny access to China.’