Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, and other Democratic senators have spearheaded an investigation into the role major U.S. banks will play in assisting the Trump administration sell Venezuelan oil.  

The inquiry comes after President Donald Trump announced that Venezuela’s interim government would hand over up to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S. and that the oil would be sold ‘immediately.’ 

While Trump has said that he would control the proceeds of the sale, the Department of Energy also announced Jan. 7 that this would require ‘key banks to execute and provide financial support for these sales’ and that proceeds would remain housed at ‘U.S. controlled accounts at globally recognized banks.’ 

Likewise, Trump signed an executive order Jan. 9 ‘declaring a national emergency to safeguard Venezuelan oil revenue held in U.S. Treasury accounts from attachment or judicial process, ensuring these funds are preserved to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives.’

As a result, the lawmakers have raised concerns because the Trump administration did not share any details regarding which financial institutions would be involved — prompting concerns from them about transparency regarding the destination of the funds.

It ‘appears that at least a portion of the oil proceeds will be held in the U.S. Treasury despite being the sovereign property of another country,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘It is unclear whether and to what extent the Administration still plans to direct some proceeds of oil sales into accounts held at banks in the private sector.’  

‘Given that rapidly evolving situation and the Administration’s failure to provide clarity on its plans for Venezuela’s oil and the funds raised from oil sales, we write to you to seek answers to the following questions,’ the lawmakers wrote. 

As a result, the lawmakers requested that the banks provide details on whether the Trump administration contacted them about becoming involved in the sale of Venezuelan oil or handling the proceeds of such sales, if they were solicited to provide financial or other kinds of support for the oil sales, if they are holding or plan to hold proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales in U.S.-controlled accounts, and all communications between the banks and administration officials regarding Venezuelan oil and military operations there.

The letters were sent to financial institutions including the Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, UBS and others. 

Bank of America and Goldman Sachs declined to provide comment to Fox News Digital, and UBS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

The lawmakers are requesting answers from the bank by the end of January, and are also requesting the banks provide updates regarding their communication with the Trump administration on a monthly basis.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Trump announced on Jan. 3 that he had authorized strikes in Venezuela and that the U.S. had captured its dictator, Nicolás Maduro. He then said that the U.S. would ‘run’ Venezuela until a peaceful transition could occur. 

The Trump administration extended invitations to Russia and Belarus to join a proposed Gaza ‘Board of Peace,’ officials in both countries said Monday. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow that Russian President Vladimir Putin is reviewing the invitation.

‘President Putin has indeed received an offer through diplomatic channels to join this Board of Peace. We are currently studying all the details of this proposal,’ Peskov said, according to Russian state media outlet TASS. ‘We hope to contact the U.S. side to clarify all the details.’

Belarus’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs also confirmed receiving an invitation, saying in a post on X that President Donald Trump sent Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko a letter proposing the country become a founding member of the ‘Board of Peace.’

‘We are ready to take part in the activities of the Board of Peace, taking into account and hoping that this organization will expand its scope and authority far beyond the mandate proposed in the initiative,’ the ministry said.

Other countries over the weekend, including Argentina, Jordan, Canada, India, Egypt, Hungary and Vietnam, announced they too had received invitations from the White House.

Neither the State Department nor the White House immediately responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment about a full tally of all countries invited.

The White House released a statement on Friday outlining the next phase of Trump’s Gaza peace plan, naming senior international figures to oversee governance, reconstruction and long-term development of the enclave.

‘The Board of Peace will play an essential role in fulfilling all 20 points of the President’s plan, providing strategic oversight, mobilizing international resources, and ensuring accountability as Gaza transitions from conflict to peace and development,’ the statement said in part.

Trump will chair the board and be joined by a group of senior political, diplomatic and business figures, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and billionaire Marc Rowan, among others.

The Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump’s proposed Gaza peace board would require countries seeking a permanent seat to pay a $1 billion fee, according to a draft charter circulated to prospective members.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on X that the composition of a separate ‘Gaza Executive Board,’ which names Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi as appointed members, was not coordinated with Israel and ‘runs contrary to its policy.’

Iran’s internet blackout has hardened into a permanent system of digital repression, with the regime treating citizens’ access to the outside world as an ‘existential threat,’ according to digital rights monitors.

Internet monitoring group NetBlocks reported Monday that Iran’s connectivity landscape had shifted dramatically as the country entered its 22nd day of unrest, following several days of almost total nationwide internet shutdown.

‘On the twenty-second day, after several days of an almost complete internet shutdown, reports emerged of limited and unstable internet connectivity in some parts of the country,’ NetBlocks reported.

‘Indications are that we’re seeing a move toward a kind of ‘filternet plus’ censorship scheme in Iran,’ NetBlocks CEO Alp Toker told Fox News Digital before pointing to ‘a rapid decline into a darker kind of digital darkness.’

‘The key difference from the pre-protest filternet arrangement is that, while internet platforms were extensively censored before, the regime is selectively whitelisting only a handful of services it deems critical for business needs.

‘Even this selective access is sporadic, which means the censorship is likely still in the test phase,’ he added. ‘In practice though, ordinary users remain offline.’

Toker described how the digital darkness ‘is in fact getting darker because the information controls are getting tighter.’

‘Where international links were tolerated as a window to trade, the regime is approaching each of these as potential threats,’ he said before adding that the regime ‘sees its own citizens’ ability to communicate with the rest of the world as an existential threat because the people are disaffected.’

According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) at least 2,571 people were killed as of Monday, with additional deaths reported but not yet fully verified amid the communications blackout.

The internet blackout began Jan. 8 amid escalating demonstrations since Dec. 28, as authorities sought to prevent protesters from organizing, sharing videos of crackdowns and communicating with the outside world.

Since then, connectivity has remained inconsistent, with frequent outages and throttling even when partial access is restored.

Iran International reported the blackout was expected to last until at least late March, with IranWire saying government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani told media activists that access to international online services would not be restored before Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, on March 20.

‘Having internet access was always a window to the outside and a lifeline for many Iranians,’ Toker added. ‘It allowed for personal expression and culture that is banned by the regime.’

‘These online freedoms can be as simple as online gaming, watching foreign movies or women’s ability to participate equally in spaces that would otherwise be barred by the Islamic Republic,’ he added.

‘With the internet blackout continuing, the curtain has been drawn on that window,’ Toker said. ‘This is angering many Iranians, particularly Gen Z, who stand to lose a part of their identity.’

The blackout has also coincided with cyber incidents targeting Iran’s state infrastructure.

As previously reported by Fox News Digital, anti-regime activists hacked Iran’s national broadcaster, briefly interrupting state television to air protest messages and calls from Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah and a prominent opposition figure.

‘We aren’t able to see the specific hack here,’ Toker explained. ‘The lack of up-to-date security is an issue for Iran.’

‘It is caused directly by the country’s digital isolation,’ he said. ‘Iran’s internet systems are outdated, and security tools aren’t available due to internet restrictions.’

Toker added that embargoes force widespread use of pirated software, which often contains hidden vulnerabilities that can be exploited to breach critical networks.

He said cyber warfare played a major role during the June 2025 clashes between Israel and Iran, prompting the blackout as a defensive measure against digital attacks. Israel, he noted, also restricted parts of its own network at the time.

‘In 2026, we haven’t seen the same focus on cyber incidents, but it’s clear there’s an ongoing battle between state actors as well as individual hackers,’ Toker said.

Denmark on Monday ramped up its military presence in Greenland, deploying extra troops to the strategic Arctic territory amid escalating tensions with President Donald Trump.

Local Danish broadcaster TV 2 said the Danish Armed Forces confirmed a new contingent of troops, described as ‘a substantial contribution,’ were arriving at Greenland’s main international airport Monday night.

Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen, head of Denmark’s Arctic Command, said about 100 Danish soldiers have already arrived in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, with others later deployed to Kangerlussuaq in western Greenland.

The new military move comes in the wake of comments made by Trump over the region’s strategic and military importance. 

In a Truth Social post Jan. 18, Trump warned that Denmark had failed to secure Greenland against foreign threats.

‘NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland,’’ Trump wrote. 

‘Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!’ he said.

On Monday, a text message exchange between Trump and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre over Greenland and the Nobel Peace Prize was released in a statement.

‘Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?’ Trump said before adding that there were ‘no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,’ he said in part of the exchange.

‘I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT,’ he added.

Before now, according to Reuters, Andersen had said that Danish troop deployment was driven by broader security concerns, not by Trump’s statements.

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen also said that Denmark has begun increasing its military footprint in and around Greenland in cooperation with its NATO allies and as part of efforts to strengthen Arctic defense, Reuters reported.

Danish forces already stationed in Greenland could remain for a year or more, with additional rotations planned in the coming years.

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Jan. 15 the presence of European troops would not affect Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland.

‘I don’t think troops from Europe impact the president’s decision-making process, nor does it impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all,’ she told reporters.

The additional Danish troop deployment also came following Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would impose a 10% import tax starting in February on goods from countries that have supported Denmark and Greenland, including Norway.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

President Donald Trump has spent the bulk of his second White House term testing the limits of his Article II authorities, both at home and abroad – a defining constitutional fight that legal experts expect to continue to play out in the federal courts for the foreseeable future.

These actions have included the U.S. capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, who was deposed during a U.S. military raid in Caracas earlier this month, and Trump’s continued fight to deploy National Guard troops in Democrat-led localities, despite the stated objections of state and local leaders.

The moves have drawn reactions ranging from praise to sharp criticism, while raising fresh legal questions about how far a sitting president can go in wielding power at home and abroad.

Legal experts told Fox News Digital in a series of interviews that they do not expect Trump’s executive powers to be curtailed, at least not significantly or immediately, by the federal courts in the near-term.

Despite near-certain challenges from Maduro – who would likely argue any U.S. arrest in Venezuela is illegal, echoing Manuel Noriega’s failed strategy decades ago – experts say Trump’s Justice Department would have little trouble citing court precedent and prior Office of Legal Counsel guidance to justify his arrest and removal.

U.S. presidents have long enjoyed a wider degree of authority on foreign affairs issues – including acting unilaterally to order extraterritorial arrests. Like other U.S. presidents, Trump can cite guidance published in the late 1980s to argue Maduro’s arrest was made within the ‘national interest’ or to protect U.S. persons and property.

Even if an arrest were viewed as infringing on another country’s sovereignty, experts say Trump could cite ample court precedent and longstanding Office of Legal Counsel and Justice Department guidance to argue the action was legally sound.

A 1989 memo authored by then-U.S. Assistant Attorney General Bill Barr has surfaced repeatedly as one of the strongest arguments Trump could cite to justify Maduro’s capture. That OLC memo states that ‘the president, pursuant to his inherent constitutional authority, can authorize enforcement actions independent of any statutory grant of power.’ It also authorizes FBI agents to effectuate arrests ordered by the president under the ‘Take Care’ clause of the U.S. Constitution, and says the authority to order extraterritorial arrests applies even if it impinges ‘on the sovereignty of other countries.’

Importantly, federal courts have read these powers to apply even in instances where Congress has not expressly granted statutory authorization to intervene.

‘When federal interests are at stake, the president, under Article II, has the power to protect them,’ Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

That’s because Article II, at its core, is ‘the power for a U.S. president to protect [its] people,’ Blackman said. 

‘The reason why we detained Maduro was to effectuate an arrest. DOJ personnel and FBI agents were there to arrest him and read him his rights. And the reason why we used 150 aircraft, and all the other military equipment, was to protect the people who were going to arrest Maduro,’ he added. ‘It was a law enforcement operation, but [with] military backing to protect them – so Article II does factor in here, indirectly.’ 

Though Trump himself has not cited a legal justification for the invasion, senior administration officials have, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who described Maduro’s arrest respectively, as a mission to indict two ‘fugitives of justice,’ and as a ‘joint military and law enforcement raid.’

In Minnesota, next steps for Trump are a bit more fraught. 

Trump’s National Guard deployment efforts were stymied by the Supreme Court in December, after the high court halted Trump’s National Guard deployments under Title 10. 

Trump had deployed the federalized troops to Illinois and Oregon last year to protect ICE personnel. But the high court issued an interim order rejecting Trump’s bid, noting that under Title 10, the administration could not federalize the National Guard until it first showed they tried to authorize the regular military to enforce the laws but could not do so. 

Some court watchers have noted that the ruling essentially closes off alternatives for Trump to act.

Instead, Trump could opt to enact his Article II ‘protective powers’ domestically via a more sweeping and extreme alternative.

This includes the use of the Insurrection Act to call up active-duty U.S. troops and order them deployed to Minnesota and elsewhere. 

The Insurrection Act is a broad tool that gives presidents the authority to deploy military forces in the U.S. when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion’ make it ‘impracticable to enforce the laws.’ 

Critics note it is a powerful, far-reaching statute that could grant Trump an expansive set of powers to act domestically in ways that are not reviewable by Congress or by the courts.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, noted this possibility in a recent chat with former White House counsel Robert Bauer. By ‘closing off this other statute,’ he said, the Supreme Court ‘may have, some argue, driven the president in the direction of the Insurrection Act because this other source of authority was not available.’

Trump allies, for their part, have argued that the president has few other options at his disposal in the wake of the Supreme Court’s interim ruling.

Chad Wolf, the America First Policy Institute’s chair of homeland security and immigration, told Fox News Digital last week that Trump could have ‘little choice’ but to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

‘If the situation on the ground in Minneapolis continues to grow violent, with ICE officers being targeted and injured as well as other violent acts … Trump will have little choice,’ he said. 

Experts are split on to what degree there is a through-line between the two issues.

Blackman, the South Texas College of Law professor, said the ‘point of connection’ in Trump’s actions is the presidential ‘power of protection’ under Article II, which he said applies both abroad and at home. ‘The president can protect his law enforcement domestically, and he can protect his law enforcement abroad, both under Article II.’

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.