Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

US Senate votes against limiting Trump’s ability to attack Venezuela

US Senate votes against limiting Trump’s ability to attack Venezuela

Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure. Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela. Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech. The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people. The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen. Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro. Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil. Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.” Advertisement “If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said. Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed. Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea. The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions. Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government. Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution. Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US. Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans. “President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes. While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela. Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements. In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war. Adblock test (Why?)

US lawmakers call on UK’s ex-prince Andrew to testify over Epstein ties

US lawmakers call on UK’s ex-prince Andrew to testify over Epstein ties

United States lawmakers have written to Andrew, Britain’s disgraced former prince, requesting that he sit for a formal interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a day after King Charles III formally stripped his younger brother of his royal titles. Separately, a secluded desert ranch where Epstein once entertained guests is coming under renewed scrutiny in the US state of New Mexico, with two state legislators proposing a “truth commission” to uncover the full extent of the financier’s crimes there. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list On Thursday, 16 Democratic Party members of Congress signed a letter addressed to “Mr Mountbatten Windsor”, as Andrew is now publicly known, to participate in a “transcribed interview” with the US House of Representatives oversight committee’s investigation into Epstein. “The committee is seeking to uncover the identities of Mr Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations,” the letter read. “Well-documented allegations against you, along with your longstanding friendship with Mr Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation,” it added. The letter asked Andrew to respond by November 20. The US Congress has no power to compel testimony from foreigners, making it unlikely Andrew will give evidence. The letter will be another unwelcome development for the disgraced former prince after a turbulent few weeks. On October 30, Buckingham Palace said King Charles had “initiated a formal process” to revoke Andrew’s royal status after weeks of pressure to act over his relationship with Epstein – who took his own life in prison in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges. Advertisement The rare move to strip a British prince or princess of their title – last taken in 1919 after Prince Ernest Augustus sided with Germany during World War I – also meant that Andrew was evicted from his lavish Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor and moved into “private accommodation”. King Charles formally made the changes with an announcement published on Wednesday in The Gazette – the United Kingdom’s official public record – saying Andrew “shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of ‘Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince’”. Andrew surrendered his use of the title Duke of York earlier in October following new abuse allegations from his accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, in her posthumous memoir, which hit shelves last month. The Democrat lawmakers referenced Giuffre’s memoir in their letter, specifically claims that she feared “retaliation if she made allegations against” Andrew, and that he had asked his personal protection officer to “dig up dirt” on his accuser for a smear campaign in 2011. “This fear of retaliation has been a persistent obstacle to many of those who were victimised in their fight for justice,” the letter said. “In addition to Mr. Epstein’s crimes, we are investigating any such efforts to silence, intimidate, or threaten victims.” Giuffre, who alleges that Epstein trafficked her to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, twice when she was just 17, took her own life in Australia in April. In 2022, Andrew paid Giuffre a multimillion-pound settlement to resolve a civil lawsuit she had levelled against him. Andrew denied the allegations, and he has not been charged with any crime. Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch as seen on July 8, 2019 [KRQE via AP Photo] On Thursday, Democratic lawmakers also turned the spotlight on Zorro Ranch, proposing to the House of Representatives’ Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee that a commission be created to investigate alleged crimes against young girls at the New Mexico property, which Epstein purchased in 1993. State Representative Andrea Romero said several survivors of Epstein’s abuse have signalled that sex trafficking activity extended to the secluded desert ranch with a hilltop mansion and private runway in Stanley, about 56 kilometres (35 miles) south of the state capital, Santa Fe. “This commission will specifically seek the truth about what officials knew, how crimes were unreported or reported, and how the state can ensure that this essentially never happens again,” Romero told a panel of legislators. Advertisement “There’s no complete record of what occurred,” she said. Representative Marianna Anaya, presenting to the committee alongside Romero, said state authorities missed several opportunities over decades to stop Epstein. “Even after all these years, you know, there are still questions of New Mexico’s role as a state, our roles in terms of oversight and accountability for the survivors who are harmed,” she said. New Mexico laws allowed Epstein to avoid registering locally as a sex offender long after he was required to register in Florida, where he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008. Republican Representative Andrea Reeb said she believed New Mexicans “have a right to know what happened at this ranch” and she didn’t feel the commission was going to be a “big political thing”. To move forward, approval will be needed from the state House when the legislature convenes in January. Adblock test (Why?)

Hundreds of US flights cancelled as regulator orders cuts to air traffic

Hundreds of US flights cancelled as regulator orders cuts to air traffic

The Federal Aviation Administration is cutting air traffic by 10 percent due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. Hundreds of flights across the US have been cancelled following an order from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to temporarily cut air traffic by 10 percent at the country’s 40 largest airports to maintain safety amid a shortage of air traffic controllers due to the government shutdown. More than 790 flights scheduled for Friday were cut from airline schedules, according to FlightAware, a website that tracks flight disruptions. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list That number, already four times higher than Thursday’s daily total of cancellations, was likely to keep climbing, while almost 500 have been cancelled for Saturday so far, according to the website. The FAA issued its order on Thursday in response to the growing number of absences by air traffic controllers amid the record-breaking US government shutdown, as Republicans and Democrats remain locked in a standoff in Congress over legislation to fund government services. “Since the beginning of the shutdown, controllers have been working without pay,” the FAA order said. “This has resulted in increased reports of strain on the system from both pilots and air traffic controllers. This past weekend, there were 2,740 delays at various airports,” it said. US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the decision to cancel flights was a proactive safety decision rather than a political measure as the shutdown enters its 38th day on Friday. “My department has many responsibilities, but our number one job is safety. This isn’t about politics – it’s about assessing the data and alleviating building risk in the system as controllers continue to work without pay,” Duffy said. Advertisement “It’s safe to fly today, and it will continue to be safe to fly next week because of the proactive actions we are taking,” he said. .@USDOT has many responsibilities, but our number one job is safety. This isn’t about politics – it’s about assessing the data and alleviating building risk in the system as controllers continue working without pay. It’s safe to fly today, tomorrow, and the day after because… pic.twitter.com/YRrq5sdy4T — Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) November 7, 2025 The FAA’s phased-in cuts to air traffic over the next week will see a 4 percent reduction in air traffic on Friday, and will end with 10 percent by November 14. The FAA’s order also specifies that airlines do not need to cut international flights, although this decision will be left up to their discretion. Impacted airports include Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Chicago O’Hare, and New York’s John F Kennedy international airports. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said his department would not hesitate to take “further action”, suggesting further cuts to flights could be made down the road. The FAA decision puts renewed pressure on Senate Democrats, who are blocking a government spending bill over healthcare spending, as the US is preparing for its busiest travel days of the year at the end of November. The FAA employed just over 14,000 air traffic controllers in fiscal year 2024, according to its website. They are among the 730,000 “essential” federal employees who have been working without pay for the past five weeks, while another 670,000 have been furloughed, according to the Washington, DC-based Bipartisan Policy Center. Adblock test (Why?)