Monday, November 24, 2025

What to know about Trump’s $2K tariff check proposal

 

President Trump announced on Sunday that most Americans will receive “at least” $2,000 from the tariff revenue collected by the Trump administration.

Trump’s statement, made early Sunday on his Truth Social platform, comes after the White House defended his sweeping use of tariffs before the Supreme Court this past week, where the justices appeared skeptical of the president’s broad use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump’s public musing about Americans pocketing $2,000 from his tariff revenue also comes after Democrats emerged victorious in races across the country in last week’s elections. From more moderate to more progressive candidates, Democrats ran disciplined campaigns focused on affordability and cost of living.

Here’s what to know about Trump’s $2,000 tariff check proposal:

What Trump has said about the checks 

Trump touted his tariffs Sunday morning, saying those who oppose them are “FOOLS” and that the revenue generated from the import tax on foreign goods will soon begin paying down the country’s debt and put money directly in people’s pockets.

“People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS! We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price. 401k’s are Highest EVER,” Trump wrote in his Truth Social post.

“We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place,” he continued. “A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

Trump floated the idea of giving Americans checks, worth somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000, in an interview on One America News Network last month.

“We’re going to do something, we’re looking at something. Number one, we’re paying down debt. Because people have allowed the debt to go crazy,” Trump said at the time. “We’ll pay back debt, but we also might make a distribution to the people, almost like a dividend to the people of America.”

In an interview Sunday on ABC News’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told host George Stephanopoulos that he hasn’t spoken to Trump yet about his proposal but that “the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways” that do not just resemble direct stimulus checks.

“It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda,” Bessent said. “You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. Deductibility of auto loans.”

“So, you know, those are substantial deductions that, you know, are being financed in the tax bill,” Bessent added.

Who qualifies for the dividends 

Trump has not specified who would qualify for the dividend, although he said “everyone,” except “high-income people,” would be paid at least $2,000 in the form of a dividend.

The White House and Treasury Department did not respond to questions about what income levels would be precluded from receiving the dividends and whether children would be entitled to the same dividends. The administration also did not say how much the dividends would cost the country.

During the pandemic, Congress passed three rounds of stimulus checks, two of which were signed into law by Trump during his first administration.

The first round, in March 2020, gave $1,200 to each tax filer and $500 per child. The second round, in December 2020, gave $600 to each tax filer and $600 per child. The third round, signed into law by former President Biden in March 2021, gave each tax filer $1,400, or $2,800 for married couples, with $1,400 per child or dependent.

For the two rounds of stimulus checks that Trump signed into law, individuals making up to $75,000 a year and married couples making up to $150,000 were eligible for the full amount of payments. Americans whose incomes surpassed that threshold were entitled to reduced payments, up to a point.

The Internal Revenue Service said more than 476 million payments were made, totaling $814 billion in financial relief during the pandemic.

How much revenue do tariffs generate 

In his interview on ABC News on Sunday, the Treasury Department secretary insisted that the primary goal of the tariffs is not to generate revenue, which falls under Congress’s purview, but rather to address what the administration sees as unfair trade imbalances.

“It’s not about taking in the revenue, it’s about rebalancing,” Bessent said. “And the revenue occurs early on. And then as we rebalance and the jobs come home, then it becomes domestic tax revenue.”

However, the tariffs have already generated billions of dollars in revenue.

Through September, the government raised $195 billion in revenue from the tariffs, which are taxes on foreign goods that companies pay when importing products overseas.

That represents a 250 percent increase, or an additional $118 billion, compared with what the government collected in tariffs the previous year, in fiscal 2024.

The tariffs are expected to generate roughly $3 trillion over the next decade, according to data from the Treasury Department.


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5597771-what-to-know-trumps-2k-tariff-check-proposal/

GOP Senate Majority Whip Unloads on Dem 'Illegal Order' Complainers


RedState 

On the most recent Fox News Sunday Morning Futures, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) appeared with host Maria Bartiromo to discuss, among other topics, recent messages from prominent Democrats (one who is former CIA) advising our military members of their obligation to refuse illegal orders. These statements were clearly aimed at the Trump administration's use of troops, mostly National Guard, to help with crime crackdowns in several major cities.

On this topic, Maria Bartiromo asked the senator:

What is your reaction to your colleagues on the left, telling U.S. military members to ignore President Trump's directive?

Senator Barrasso:

Well, what they're doing is wrong, and I believe it's dangerous. Maria, they have no right to tell members of the military to disobey - we're talking about active duty military - to disobey orders from their commanding officers. That's the way the military works. And it's up to the Supreme Court to decide what's constitutional, not six Democrats on social media. I think the president is absolutely right to be requiring and talking about legal responsibility and then being held accountable. These are the same Democrats who have been doing everything they can for the last ten months to undermine President Trump, undermine the Republican party and our efforts, every one of them voted to raise taxes by $4 trillion, every one of them voted for the shutdown, and kept our country shut down and caused significant pain to the American people.

There are a few things to unpack here.

As they so often do, the Democrat complainers here have taken a kernel of truth and surrounded it with a bushel of horse squeeze. It is true that American service members have not only the right but the obligation to refuse to carry out illegal orders. Service members are taught that in initial entry training. But one of these Democrats, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who worked for the CIA of all things - that being a community that no one ever really leaves - gave a tacit admission in an appearance on ABC news that the president has not issued any illegal orders. She then proceeded to bizarrely bring up incidents from the Nuremberg trials and, of all things, a fictional movie.

That's what they're going with? Seriously?

Of course, there may well be a more serious problem here. It would take a long, involved legal process to determine, a process nobody seems anxious to start and which in all probability will never happen, but it seems like these statements from these Democrat senators could be seen as an incitement to mutiny. And if any significant number of service members start refusing lawful orders, which are the only orders they have received, then this could get very serious indeed.

At best, these Democrats are fomenting doubt and possible unrest in our military. Several of them are former military or formerly part of the nation's intelligence apparatus. They should know better. The First Amendment, of course, gives them the right to speak their minds, but it sure doesn't seem to grant them even a nodding acquaintance with good sense.



BEYOND THE RESET - Animated Short Film

You want to know what the future under socialism looks like ?
2 years ago I saw and bookmarked this... 25 minutes ...
See the dystopian future ...


A 3D animated short film about not too distant but a dystopian future.

It speculates on the potential consequences of the infamous Great Reset, medical tyranny, woke culture, and green agenda.

Everything, that World Economic Forum (WEF) is planning for us.

Spoiler: you will get to see an animated Klaus Schwab

15 Minute cities are already, if not now, but in the near future...
... no car needed... walk to wok, bundle buggies to bring home food. No private residence buildings.
Gov'ts own the apartment buildings. Rent a % of income.
No cash... CBDC's and social credit scores.
You are allowed to buy but where you're told and how much. .

Rubio 'Very Optimistic' a Peace Deal Can Be Reached After Meeting With Ukrainian Officials in Geneva


RedState 

After talks on Sunday between top U.S. and Ukrainian officials aimed at resolving the Russia-Ukraine War, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was "very optimistic" that a deal could be reached.

Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, and Jared Kushner met with a Ukrainian delegation to discuss a peace proposal Rubio confirmed was authored by the U.S. and based on "input from the Russian side" and "also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine."

The draft proposal has been widely viewed as too conciliatory to Russia. European countries presented a counter-proposal reportedly drafted by Germany, France, and Britain.

“This is a very delicate moment,” Rubio said. "Some of it is semantics, or language. Others require higher-level decisions and consultations. Others, I think, just need more time to work through.”

The head of the Ukrainian delegation, presidential chief of staff Andrii Yermak, said, “We have made very good progress and are moving forward to a just and lasting peace."

The White House released a readout of the talks:

Today, Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Witkoff, Mr. Jared Kushner, and Secretary Driscoll held an extensive and productive meeting with the Ukrainian delegation to review the latest draft agreements under discussion. The conversation was candid, detailed, and conducted in a spirit of partnership and shared purpose.

The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting. They expressed appreciation for the structured approach taken to incorporate their feedback into each component of the emerging settlement framework.

Ukrainian representatives stated that, based on the revisions and clarifications presented today, they believe the current draft reflects their national interests and provides credible and enforceable mechanisms to safeguard Ukraine’s security in both the near and long term. They underscored that the strengthened security guarantee architecture, combined with commitments on non-aggression, energy stability, and reconstruction, meaningfully addresses their core strategic requirements.

Secretary Rubio and his team reiterated the United States’ firm commitment to ensuring that Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and future prosperity remain central to the ongoing diplomatic process. They emphasized that this work is driven by President Trump’s goal of ending a war that has taken the lives of millions of people and preventing further loss of life through a durable and enforceable peace. Both sides welcomed the steady progress made and agreed to continue consultations as the agreements move toward final refinement.

The meeting concluded with a shared understanding that today marked a significant step forward, and that continued close coordination will be essential as the Parties work toward a durable, comprehensive peace.

The parties also issued a joint statement, which reads:

On 23 November 2025, representatives of the United States and Ukraine met in Geneva for discussions on the U.S. peace proposal. The talks were constructive, focused, and respectful, underscoring the shared commitment to achieving a just and lasting peace.

Both sides agreed the consultations were highly productive. The discussions showed meaningful progress toward aligning positions and identifying clear next steps. They reaffirmed that any future agreement must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and deliver a sustainable and just peace. As a result of the discussions, the parties drafted an updated and refined peace framework.

The Ukrainian delegation reaffirmed its gratitude for the steadfast commitment of the United States and, personally, President Donald J. Trump for their tireless efforts aimed at ending the war and the loss of life.

Ukraine and the United States agreed to continue intensive work on joint proposals in the coming days. They will also remain in close contact with their European partners as the process advances.

Final decisions under this framework will be made by the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States.

Both sides reiterated their readiness to continue working together to secure a peace that ensures Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction.

For his part, President Trump called out Europe for still buying Russian oil while allegedly opposing Russia's invasion, and called Ukraine ungrateful.

The full post reads:

The War between Russia and Ukraine is a violent and terrible one that, with strong and proper U.S. and Ukrainian LEADERSHIP, would have NEVER HAPPENED. It began long before I took office for a Second Term, during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration, and has only gotten worse. If the 2020 Presidential Election was not RIGGED & STOLEN, the only thing the Radical Left Democrats are good at doing, there would be no Ukraine/Russia War, as there wasn’t, not even a mention, during my first Term in Office. Putin would never have attacked! It was only when he saw Sleepy Joe in action that he said, “Now is my chance!” The rest is history, and so it continues. I INHERITED A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, A WAR THAT IS A LOSER FOR EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SO NEEDLESSLY DIED. UKRAINE “LEADERSHIP” HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS, AND EUROPE CONTINUES TO BUY OIL FROM RUSSIA. THE USA CONTINUES TO SELL MASSIVE $AMOUNTS OF WEAPONS TO NATO, FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UKRAINE (CROOKED JOE GAVE EVERYTHING, FREE, FREE, FREE, INCLUDING “BIG” MONEY!). GOD BLESS ALL THE LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST IN THE HUMAN CATASTROPHE! President DJT



Senator Mark Warner Not Happy with Ukraine Peace Proposal – Video and Transcript


Sometimes it pays to remind what Marco Rubio said back in February, “Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.”  From that context the remarks from SSCI Vice-Chair, Senator Mark Warner, make sense.

Warner appears on ABC News ‘This Week’ to denounce the peace proposal now being negotiated in Geneva, Switzerland between Secretary Rubio and the Ukrainian delegation.  Senator Warner makes it clear he will not accept the end to conflict in Ukraine.  Video and Transcript Below:



[TRANSCRIPT] – Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner joins me now.

Good to see you this morning, Senator.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR: Good morning, Martha.

RADDATZ: What is your reaction to this peace proposal that is on the table?

WARNER: My reaction is it’s awful. It would make Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Hitler outside of World War II looks strong in comparison. The fact that this was almost a series of Russian talking points, would require Ukraine to give the — totality of the Donbas, parts they still control, cut back their military forces going forward, never be able to join NATO.

This would be a complete capitulation. And it’s why I think you’re hearing from Congress, both sides, people pushing back. And, obviously, the Europeans feel like they’ve been totally left high and dry.

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: You’ve heard the deadline from President Trump, but then him saying that’s not — there’s room for negotiation here, it seems like. So, what do you think happens after today (ph)?

WARNER: I think what happens — it feels like this was a plan that they took almost entirely from the Russians, did no consultation with Congress, no consultation with the Europeans, obviously didn’t read in Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians, and now they’re getting ferocious pushback. So, one more time, Trump is changing his deadline.

Of course, how he picked Thanksgiving to start with, I have no idea. But now it — even with this — some of this back and forth that it’s not really an American plan, or isn’t an American plan, this is the kind of chaos that, unfortunately, represents so much of the Trump foreign policy.

RADDATZ: So, what do you think President Zelenskyy should do? He’s been through this before. It’s kind of back and forth with this White House. They support you. They pull it back. Do you think all of this, this proposal, which seems to heavily favor Russia, is that just a starting point again?

WARNER: Well, I would hope — I would hope so. Again, the Ukrainians have performed magnificently in the field. And they are reinventing the nature of warfare in terms of use — use of drones. To have this proposal forced upon them, I think as Zelenskyy said, Ukrainian dignity versus giving up a partner, I would hope the president would not be so weak as to try to force this plan on the Ukrainian and our other allies. It would, I think, send not only a horrible signal for Europe, but the person who’s watching this probably the most closely is President Xi in China. And if the Americans are willing to throw in their towel so much like this on Ukraine, you can bet that Xi is thinking, this gives him a clearer path in terms of taking Taiwan.

RADDATZ: But what does Zelenskyy do here? If on Thursday the president says, I’m telling you right now, take what we’ve got on the table and — and there will probably be some changes, or we’re done. What — what does Zelenskyy do, just hope that Europe rises and helps him out?

WARNER: Well, let’s — let’s, again, you have overwhelming support still for Ukraine. The last Ukraine aid package had 80 percent of the Congress. I think the president is seeing this one-sided plan kind of blow up in his face with pushback from the Ukrainians, from the Europeans, from members of Congress of his own party. And my hope is, he’ll come back and be a bit more reasonable.

RADDATZ: I want to turn to Venezuela. We’re all watching that this week. What can you tell us about what you think happens now. We’ve got this massive buildup. We’ve got this massive show of force. We have airline who aren’t — that aren’t flying there because of all the activity and the military activity right now.

Do you expect something more to happen?

WARNER: Well, historically, the United States’ intervention in Central America or South America has not always rolled out the way we’d hope. Maduro was a bad guy, frankly, under Biden. When the Venezuelan people voted in overwhelming numbers, Biden should have put more pressure on getting Maduro out then. It was a mistake.

But now, to have this much armed forces, we have not been briefed on any military action that would have been authorized. He keeps putting the word out that maybe he has authorized, maybe he’s not. We are trying to get the answer on that. But there is a real question. You know, to take this big a fleet, bring our largest aircraft carrier, put them there to further blow up boats that they claim have drugs on them, frankly they could have interdicted some of those boats and shown the world that there were drugs.

In terms of Venezuela, the legal opinion about the drug run — drug running doesn’t touch Venezuela at all. So, the president would have to come back and brief us.

RADDATZ: Trump says he’ll be speaking with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Do you think that is a good idea? And what can you say to him?

WARNER: Because I think the notion that Trump says he’ll talk to anyone, I think that is — I’m not going to critique him on that, if there’s a way to push Maduro out. Remember, our government and fifty other governments, almost all of Western Europe, don’t recognize the Maduro government as legitimate. But it does not feel like there is an organized plan. And coming down again, America only, without any of our other allies in South America or Central America again seems not the right approach to me.

RADDATZ: What could happen short of a show of force? When you have that massive a show of force, it’s almost like, you’re in a position where you have to do something or you might look weak. Short of Maduro saying, OK, I’ll leave, then what does he do?

WARNER: Well, again, that’s the million-dollar question. And as you know, when you’ve got this many forces down there, and you can’t keep the carrier positioned there forever, you also have the chance of an accident happening or a conflict between the Venezuelan air force or some of our planes that might —

RADDATZ: Do you think he wants to go to war with Venezuela? Do you think he wants (INAUDIBLE) —

WARNER: I don’t know. I don’t know. I think he is trying to put outside pressure on Maduro. But by doing it in this kind of America only approach, again without giving any sign to, I think, even his — the Republicans on The Hill what his plans are, I’m not sure is the right way to do foreign policy. You couple this Venezuela misadventure with this desertion of Ukraine and this is not making America safer, and it’s sure not putting America first.

RADDATZ: Thanks very much for joining us, Senator. Always appreciate it.

[End Transcript]


How Cats See Humans – Jaw-Dropping Secrets Every Pet Parent Must Know

How cats see humans is nothing like what we imagine! 🐾 I

n this eye-opening video we break down the latest science on cat perception of humans and reveal why your kitty may think you’re a fellow feline—or even their mom. From cat vision explained (spoiler: reds look gray!) to the body-language cues your pet uses to judge your mood, you’ll discover the jaw-dropping secrets every pet parent must know to strengthen the cat–human bond.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Holds a Press Conference from Geneva Switzerland During Discussions with Ukraine Officials


Delegations from Ukraine and the USA have been holding talks in Geneva on a draft peace plan. No statement has been officially released, but Ukraine and Russia had received the draft 28-point plan aimed at ending the war. President Trump put the general deadline date of Thursday for review.

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has said the plan could form the basis of an agreement, but Ukraine and its European money laundering stakeholders have expressed concern. Giving a brief update during discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US and Ukrainian teams had held “probably the best meeting” since Trump returned to office.

Negotiations continued all day with Secretary Rubio noting significant progress has been made and talks will continue into tomorrow. Rubio noted, “we just need more time.” WATCH:



Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been using his X Account all day to message with allies and “stakeholders” about the negotiations.  Zelenskyy is the performative face of opposition to the peace agreement and leveraging external pressure to maintain a fight that domestically has lost significant support.

President Trump has expressed frustration with Zelenskyy’s intransigence; however, if the reporting is accurate Zelenskyy has been informed this 26 or 28 point proposal is his last opportunity to negotiate in good faith before President Trump cuts off all assistance to Ukraine.   Secretary Rubio seems very optimistic.


CIA Senator Elissa Slotkin Attempts to Change Conversation Away from Seditious Video Promotion


CIA Analyst and Senator, Elissa Slotkin, appears on ABC’s Face the Nation to defend herself from accusations of unlawful conduct following a video she produced telling military and intelligence officers to defy President Trump’s orders.

Senator Slotkin’s behavior is classic tradecraft when she appears in media.

Slotkin claimed the video was intended to draw attention to the unlawful orders that President Trump has used; however, when asked to give an example of a illegal order issued by President Trump, Slotkin nervously admits there aren’t any. WATCH (prompted):



[TRANSCRIPT] – […] RADDATZ: And here’s what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said about your video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They’re suggesting, Nancy, that the president has given illegal orders, which he has not. Every single order that is given to this United States military by this commander in chief and through this command — chain of command, through the secretary of war is lawful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: Is that an accurate statement?

SLOTKIN: So, I think the reason we put that statement out is because the sheer number of, frankly, young officers who are coming to us and saying, I just am not sure. What do I do? You know, I’m in SouthCom and I’m involved in the National Guard. I’m just not sure what do I do? And I think, look, you don’t have to take my word for it. We’ve had report after report of legal officer, JAG officers coming forward and saying, look, I push back on this. I’m not sure that this is legal.

There is such things as illegal orders. That’s why it’s in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Going back to Nuremberg, right? And it’s just a — it’s a totally benign statement. And if the president is concerned about it, then he should stay deeply within the law. But I think it’s important to know it’s not hypothetical, right?

This president in the last administration, his last administration, asked his secretary of defense and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs to, quote, “shoot at their legs at unarmed protesters in front of the White House that he wanted moved.”

RADDATZ: Actually, I know I know you’re talking about Mark Esper’s book. He didn’t exactly say that. He said the president suggested that, but they were never ordered to do that.

SLOTKIN: And he got out of the Oval Office quickly so that he wasn’t told to actually do it. And I give him a lot of credit for that. I give him a lot of credit.

RADDATZ: I do — so — so, let’s talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal order?

SLOTKIN: To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela. And I think that’s why —

RADDATZ: And be specific about that. Let me read you what Senator Lindsey Graham said about your video. “You owe it to the men and women in the military to be specific about what you are talking about. What these senators and House members did was unnerving and it was unconscionable to suggest that the President of the United States is issuing unlawful orders without giving an example.”

SLOTKIN: Yeah. So, for me, my primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, on our city — in our cities and in our streets. We’ve seen now the courts overturn the deployment of U.S. military into our streets, including here in Washington, D.C.

When you look at these videos coming out of places like Chicago, it makes me incredibly nervous that we’re about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniformed military get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians. It is a very, very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground. So, it was basically a warning to say, like, if you’re asked to do something particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.

RADDATZ: And with these service members calling you, couldn’t you have done a video saying just what you just said? If you are asked to do something, if — if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this. It does imply that the President is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.

SLOTKIN: I think for us, it was just a statement widely, right? We say very quickly and very — to all the folks who come to us, this is the process. Go to your JAG officer, ask them for explanation, for top cover, for their view on things. We do that on a case-by-case basis, but we wanted to speak directly to the volumes of people who had come to us on this.

RADDATZ: And it is very clear that no one should follow an illegal order, but it’s very murky when you look at what is an illegal order. And if you go into morally, ethically, that’s a pretty tough thing to look at and say, how do I navigate this?

SLOTKIN: I don’t — I mean, going back to Nuremberg, right, that, well, they told me to do it, that’s why I murdered people, is not an excuse. If you look at popular culture, like, you watch, you know, A Few Good Men, like we have plenty of examples since World War II in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders, and they did it, and they were prosecuted for it.

So, the best thing for people to do is go to their JAG officer, their local law enforcement or a legal officer in their unit, and ask for some explanation, ask for help. And that’s what we’ve been advising people to do.

RADDATZ: You are on the Senate Armed Services Committee. What are you seeing in terms of Venezuela? Do you think there will be further action by the president?

SLOTKIN: Well, certainly the sheer size of the military buildup in and around Venezuela. I mean, you have to assume that when superpowers put that much force into an area that they’re going to use it. They brought in aircraft carriers, they brought in F-35s.

I think the cost already is a billion dollars to move all that force into theater. Certainly, if we’re going to actually think about prosecuting some sort of war or military action against the mainland of Venezuela, I would hope that the president would want to have that conversation publicly, bring in the American people who are not looking to get into another war, who are not looking to get into regime change. We had Iraq and Afghanistan. I think people generally on all sides of the aisle are exhausted by war. But just have that conversation, be transparent about it. I think that’s what’s been hard about the strikes in the Caribbean.

Many of us would be supportive of going after drug cartels, but a secret list of secret terrorist organizations, you know, just be transparent with the American public.

RADDATZ: OK, thanks very much for joining us this morning, Senator. We appreciate it.