Dan Bongino returned to private life on Sunday after serving as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for less than a year.

Bongino said on X that Saturday was his last day on the job before he would return to ‘civilian life.’

‘It’s been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump. It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side,’ he wrote.

The former FBI deputy director announced in mid-December that he would be leaving his role at the bureau at the start of the new year.

President Donald Trump previously praised Bongino, who assumed office in March, for his work at the FBI.

‘Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show,’ Trump told reporters.

Bongino spoke publicly about the personal toll of the job during a May appearance on ‘Fox & Friends,’ saying he had sacrificed a lot to take the role.

‘I gave up everything for this,’ he said, citing the long hours both he and FBI Director Kash Patel work.

‘I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it’s hard. I mean, we love each other, and it’s hard to be apart,’ he added.

Bongino’s departure leaves Andrew Bailey, who was appointed co-deputy director in September 2025, as the bureau’s other deputy director.

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

That was evident at the press conference yesterday as President Donald Trump blew apart the carefully constructed narrative presented earlier for the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The immediate purpose and result of the operation was to capture Maduro and to bring him to face his indictment in New York. That is Noriega 2.0. The administration put him into custody at the time of extraction with law enforcement personnel and handed him over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Trump administration can then argue that it had to deal with the aftermath of that operation and would not simply leave the country without a leader or stable government. Trump emphasized, ‘We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

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

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

However, returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose. Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.

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

With Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro extracted from Caracas on Jan. 3, Venezuelans and the world are anxious to learn about the future that awaits.

In a press conference following the Maduro operation on Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. is ‘going to run the country’ until a transition can be safely made.

Isaias Medina, an international lawyer and former senior Venezuelan diplomat, said a peaceful transition is vital for the 9 million to 10 million Venezuelans who are forcibly displaced and living in exile. Medina, who resigned his diplomatic post in protest against Maduro’s rule in 2017, told Fox News Digital that exiled Venezuelans ‘have been preparing ourselves to go back to rebuild our nation.’

With support from international organizations like the Organization of American States, Medina said the most important next step for Venezuela is to establish a transitional government that can restore the rule of law and rebuild institutions that have been decimated under the Maduro regime. Setting in place free and fair elections is particularly important, Medina said, noting that it’s ‘a legal obligation owed to [Venezuela’s] people, because on their occupied territory, it was never equitable or really free.’

Under Maduro, Medina said that ‘there was no separation of powers, there was no rule of law, there was not even sovereignty.’ Instead, Medina said Venezuela had an occupied territory extensively influenced by terrorist and trafficking organizations Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). He said these groups were exploiting Venezuelan resources.

David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that so long as Venezuela poses no threat to U.S. national security, the ‘ideal situation’ for Venezuela ‘would be American guidance for determined local action.’ 

‘The best we can shepherd Venezuela to be is a productive member of the family of nations, and that’s something that we can help with a softer touch, without boots on the ground,’ Daoud said. ‘I don’t think we need to be in the business of trying to create Jeffersonian democracies anywhere.’

Following Maduro’s ouster, Daoud said the level of chaos allowed to exist inside Venezuela will determine whether terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas will be able to continue operating there. ‘It would really depend — does the day after in Venezuela create a stable state that is able to properly exercise control over all its territory, is interested in implementing the rule of law, is not corrupt. That would make things very, very complicated, if not impossible, for Hezbollah to operate, at least in the way it has been operating for a decade-plus, ever since the linkage between it and the original Chávez regime came about.’

Going forward, Medina suggested that the country will also have to manage guerrilla forces like the colectivos, violent groups of Venezuelans who were armed and trained with old U.S. and Russian military weapons. Medina said having these guerrillas ‘return the weapons for freedom’ could help to ‘unite the nation under one banner of development and evolution… so that we can have a country that really meets the expectations, not only of the riches that it has, but of the people and the development of their education and training and jobs, because it has been completely destroyed by design.’

Though the road ahead is uncertain, Medina is filled with hope. ‘What we have ahead of us is a great journey to be able to build upon the ruins of what this regime left us. But I think we’re going to become stronger, and this is the moment. The time has come,’ Medina said.

As President Donald Trump  vows to return U.S. energy investment to Venezuela, the Latin American country remains on the hook for billions of dollars owed to American energy companies following years-old legal battles over oil contracts.

Once a key supplier to global oil markets, Venezuela reshaped its relationship with international energy companies in the mid-2000s, as then-President Hugo Chávez tightened state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez effectively forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion.

While precise figures are difficult to verify since Venezuela has not published comprehensive debt statistics in years, the International Monetary Fund estimates the country’s economy will total about $82.8 billion in 2025. 

Debt levels, however, stand at nearly 200% of that total, meaning Venezuela owes nearly two dollars for every dollar it produces. 

On top of that, Venezuela has failed to repay about $60 billion in bonds, with total foreign debt rising to roughly $150 billion when loans from its top financial bankers, including Russia and China, are included.

PDVSA also issued a bond that was supposed to be repaid in 2020, backed by a majority ownership stake in U.S.-based refiner Citgo as collateral. The state-run oil company later defaulted on that payment, putting Citgo in the legal crosshairs of creditors seeking to recover billions they are owed.

The cash-strapped country, which sits atop of the globe’s largest oil reserves, has paid only a fraction of those awards.

Chevron, however, remained in the country, becoming the only U.S. energy company still operating in Venezuela amid years of sanctions, economic collapse and political turmoil.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Chevron said the firm was following ‘relevant laws and regulations’ but declined to comment on future investment plans in Venezuela.

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ the statement added.

On Saturday, Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago that he wanted U.S. oil companies to ‘spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country.’

He added that the United States ‘built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive and skill,’ and said that once the country’s energy sector is revived, the U.S. would sell that oil to markets around the world.

Venezuela’s heavy financial liabilities underscore the hurdles U.S. energy companies would face in committing new investment, despite Trump’s pledge to reengage.

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

That was evident at the press conference yesterday as President Donald Trump blew apart the carefully constructed narrative presented earlier for the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Some of us had written that Trump had a winning legal argument by focusing on the operation as the seizure of two indicted individuals in reliance on past judicial rulings, including the decisions in the case of former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The immediate purpose and result of the operation was to capture Maduro and to bring him to face his indictment in New York. That is Noriega 2.0. The administration put him into custody at the time of extraction with law enforcement personnel and handed him over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Trump administration can then argue that it had to deal with the aftermath of that operation and would not simply leave the country without a leader or stable government. Trump emphasized, ‘We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

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

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

However, returning to the legal elements, I do not see how a court could free Maduro simply because it disapproves of nation-building. Presidents have engaged in such policies for years. The aftermath of the operation is distinct from its immediate purpose. Trump can argue that, absent countervailing action from Congress, he has the authority under Article II of the Constitution to lay the foundation for a constitutional and economic revival in Venezuela.

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

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk appear to have repaired their once-strained relationship, according to a post shared by the billionaire Tesla founder on X.

In a post shared Sunday, Musk wrote, ‘Had a lovely dinner last night with @POTUS and @FLOTUS,’ before adding, ‘2026 is going to be amazing!’

The photo, taken from a Saturday evening event at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, sparked speculation that the pair’s bromance may be back on after more than a year of tension.

After the 2024 campaign, Musk became one of the Republican Party’s biggest political donors, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Reuters.

Trump later tapped Musk to advise the government efficiency effort and set up DOGE, focused on reducing federal spending and streamlining operations – but Musk stepped back from the role in mid-2025 amid mounting criticism. 

Tensions also resurfaced when Musk publicly criticized Trump-backed spending proposals and raised concerns about the size of federal outlays.

‘I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,’ Musk said in a June 3 post about Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.

‘This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,’ Musk complained.

Trump shot back that he was ‘very disappointed’ in Musk’s criticism of his bill at the time before adding, ‘Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.’

Musk shot back on X saying, ‘Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.’

At one point, Musk suggested he could form a new political party. But by late 2025, both sides appeared to strike a more conciliatory tone.

In September, the two were seen shaking hands at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in a box at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

Musk was also seen at a White House dinner in November as Trump hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. 

FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence also asked Trump at a cabinet meeting on Dec. 2 if Musk was ‘back in [his] circle of friends’ after their falling out.

‘Well, I really don’t know. I mean, I like Elon a lot,’ Trump replied.

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

To the surprise of no one, Democrats reflexively denounced Trump’s daring middle-of-the-night grab of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife.  

If Joe Biden, who offered a $25 million reward for Maduro’s arrest, had done what Trump did, these same politicians would be organizing a ticker-tape parade.  

Their condemnation of Trump has nothing to do with the law, although they pretend that it does. Instead, it is transparently driven by their contempt for a president that they despise.

Bereft of reason, they oppose whatever Trump does even if it conforms to their previously expressed beliefs.

Almost in unison, Democrats decried Trump’s action as ‘illegal,’ ‘unjustified’ and ‘unconstitutional.’ Many insisted that he was required to seek permission from Congress.  

None of that happens to be true. 

Inherent Constitutional Authority

The president is empowered by the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief of the armed forces to direct military action to protect Americans, fortify U.S. interests and defend our national security.  

The scourge of drugs emanating from Venezuela has long been poisoning our citizens. Our government estimates that roughly 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine is shipped out of the Latin American country annually. America, by virtue of its prosperity, is a favored destination.  

On this basis alone, the incursion into Caracas was legal, justified, and legitimate.

For years, Maduro has led the notorious Cartel de los Soles, a violent drug cartel that is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization responsible for murders, torture and crimes against humanity so egregious that even the United Nations recognized it.

Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution vests inherent powers in the president to unilaterally order armed forces into military actions. His command authority is supreme, and he may conduct campaigns and deploy operations by his own judgment.  

Short of a formal declaration of war, a president does not need prior authorization from Congress to act. That principle is embedded in our Constitution and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since the early founding of our Republic.

In more modern times, the president’s authority over armed action has only expanded. Cases involving Truman, Clinton and Obama solidified presidential power to direct military operations without congressional consent. 

Trump had every legal and constitutional right to defend the United States against the transport of deadly illicit drugs and to arrest the man most responsible, who has been federally indicted for numerous crimes. 

And no, Trump did not violate the War Powers Act as some of his critics have alleged. The resolution that was passed in 1973 stipulates a reporting requirement to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities. It is not a prohibition to act.

Indeed, it implicitly recognizes a president’s inherent power to use military force without specific congressional approval. Every single American president has done so since the end of World War II.  Trump is no exception.  

The ‘Take Care Clause’

The president has another authority at his disposal. The ‘Take Care Clause’ in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’

To put it simply, Trump is duty-bound to ensure that all federal statutes are enforced. This includes the apprehension, arrest, and prosecution of wanted fugitives who are criminally charged with U.S. crimes and must be brought to justice.

Effectuating the arrest of Maduro qualifies as enforcing all laws. Just because the accused is the de facto head of state in another country does not afford him protection or immunity from the long arm of American law. That is written nowhere. 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Maduro as ‘a fugitive of American justice.’ Given his armed protection, military troops were necessary to accomplish his arrest. According to Trump, the ‘operation was done in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement.’

This was also the case in 1990 under nearly identical circumstances.    

Then-President George H. W. Bush ordered the military to capture Manuel Noriega, the corrupt dictator of Panama who was indicted on drug trafficking charges and endangering U.S. citizens. After a surprise military operation in the country’s capital, he was taken into custody and spirited back to the U.S. for trial.

Noriega’s legal team of defense attorneys vigorously challenged both his arrest and America’s legal authority to try him. Those maneuvers failed, along with his various claims of immunity. He was convicted and imprisoned.

So, we’ve seen this movie before. Maduro’s lawyers will mount the same legal challenges. But if the past is prologue, there is little reason to believe that the ending will be any different.  

This leaves the rather vacant claim by Trump adversaries that his actions somehow violated the norms and customs of international law. It is a common accusation that is often lacking in substance.  

Some point to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits member nations from ‘the use of force against the territorial integrity’ of any state. However, the Charter provides an exception for self-defense.

As evidenced by the charges stated in Madura’s indictment, his actions as a narco-terrorist flooding the U.S. with deadly drugs fully justifies Trump’s actions as defensive in nature. Continued drug trafficking posed an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens.

If a conflict of American versus international law exists, our president’s obligations under Article II of the Constitution takes precedence and priority over Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Members of the United Nations can complain all they want, but the U.S. has veto power in the UN Security Council.           

Most Venezuelans seem relieved that the long nightmare of tyranny, oppression and death at the hands Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro is finally over. Their land is rich with the world’s largest oil reserves.

If free and fair elections are held, as they should be, the impoverished citizens of this proud nation can share in a brighter future of freedom, economic recovery and financial prosperity.

They will have President Trump to thank for that.