Shutdown enters 3rd week with little sign of movement on either side

Shutdown enters 3rd week with little sign of movement on either side.

Concerns grow over direction of US military action against Venezuela.

The Senate has once again rejected a Republican-backed bill to fund the government. There seems not to be any sign of negotiation taking place between Democrats and Republicans on key sticking points that have led to the shutdown. Democrats are insisting that Republicans renew Obamacare subsidies set to expire at the end of the year and restore over $1 trillion in funds cut from Medicaid by Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”. Republicans say they are open to negotiating with Democrats on healthcare issues, but are demanding they allow the government to reopen first. If the Democrats do give their votes to reopen the government, they give away their only leverage.

The dynamic seems to indicate this shutdown could extend for a long while. The Trump administration is making some moves they hope will minimize the Republicans’ political costs as the shutdown continues. They’ve redirected some of the federal income from the tariff program to fund the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The Pentagon has also redirected funds appropriated for other programs to ensure that members of the military don’t miss a paycheck. The White House Office of Management and Budget have indicated they’re looking for ways to ensure that federal law enforcement (including ICE agents) likewise continue to be paid.

However, Trump is also targeting “Democrat programs” that he wants to shut down, and says he will reveal a list on Friday. He also says his administration has fired over 4000 more government workers since the shutdown began.

The latest polls show that Americans are still more inclined to blame Republicans for the shutdown than Democrats, but that gap is slowly starting to narrow.

Growing concerns over US air travel safety as air traffic controllers under increasing stress during shutdown.

Concerns grow over direction of US military action against Venezuela

Earlier this week, Trump announced yet another US strike on a speed boat in international waters near Venezuela, saying 6 “narco-terrorists” were killed. This brings the total number of people killed by US attacks on small speed boats in the Caribbean to 27.

The administration seems determined to continue these strikes despite misgivings from lawmakers from both parties as to the legality of the strikes and the strength of the intelligence the military is using to justify the attacks. Lawmakers are also increasingly concerned about what the White House’s ultimate strategy is regarding Venezuela.

Last month, Trump declared that the US is in “armed conflict” with “terrorist” drug cartels. NBC News also reported that the Pentagon was preparing options for strikes on Venezuelan soil. These developments followed an extraordinary build up of US military assets in the southern Caribbean. Officials in Venezuela are worried that this is a prelude to an attempt at regime-change war by the US.

The Trump administration has tried in recent months to advance the message that Venezuela’s left-wing president Nicolas Maduro heads an international drug cartel and is orchestrating an “invasion” of drugs and criminals into the US. Casting the Venezuelan government as an enemy power, and better yet a “terrorist” organization, gives Trump wide legal latitude to act against Venezuela.

US intelligence agencies have dismissed Trump’s claim that Maduro is leading an “invasion” of the US. The American public seems likewise unimpressed by Trump’s conflation of narcotrafficking with “invasion” or “terrorism”. A recent poll shows that while most Americans have an unfavorable view of Venezuela’s government, 62% still say they would oppose a US military invasion of Venezuela.

Regardless, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly spearheading an effort to build a case within the White House for direct military action against Venezuela. A constellation of lobby groups, think tanks and corporate interests are also aligning in support of regime change.