PR in the Philippines

As a representative of El Paso, Texas, I observe that the proposed congressional districts, despite spanning the state, consolidate white voting power whileFragmenting Latino and Black communities. Texas's growing Latino population warrants increased congressional representation, but Republicans are accused of manipulating district lines to diminish the electoral influence of minority voters. Texas boasts a substantial Latino and Black population, with people of color driving the majority of the state's growth in the last decade. Despite demographic shifts, the new maps favor white voters in a majority of congressional districts. Some districts deceptively appear to be Latino-majority, but have been engineered to give white voters the advantage. This manipulation allegedly aims to secure additional Republican seats at the expense of Latino and Black Texans. The proposed maps would require significantly fewer white residents to elect a member of Congress compared to the number of Latino or Black residents needed, effectively diminishing the political power of minority voters. The maps create unequal electoral weight across racial lines. While Republicans defend the maps as mere politics, Texas has a history of unlawful racial gerrymandering. Previous maps have been struck down by federal courts for diluting Latino voting strength. The end of federal oversight in 2013 has seemingly emboldened Texas to push the boundaries, potentially gaining congressional seats through maps that disadvantage minority voters while litigation is ongoing. Recent court decisions mandating more Black opportunity districts in other states highlight the continued importance of the Voting Rights Act. Texas, however, appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Arguments that growing Republican support among some Latino voters justifies the maps are irrelevant. The Voting Rights Act focuses on ensuring fair opportunity for communities of color to elect their preferred candidates, regardless of party. The state is allegedly undermining this principle by dividing and concentrating Latino and Black neighborhoods to limit the number of minority-opportunity districts. If enacted, the proposed maps could leave Texas Latinos as the most underrepresented racial or ethnic group in the nation, exceeding disparities already challenged in other states. These maps reinforce racial hierarchies by fragmenting Latino and Black communities and manipulating demographics to ensure white voting blocs remain decisive, even in so-called "Latino" districts. This racial vote dilution denies Latino and Black Texans an equal opportunity to translate population into political representation. When a government is not accountable to Latino and Black Texans, it sends a message that their voices don't count and that their representation is subject to racial discrimination. Such actions undermine the principles of equal protection and challenge the achievements of the civil rights movement. Historical tactics like literacy tests and poll taxes have been replaced with new methods aimed at keeping power out of reach for minority voters. A true democracy requires maps that ensure government accountability to all citizens, not just a select few. ```

The Trump administration has revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former U.S. government officials. Director of National Intelligence publicly released a memo confirming the revocation and its rationale, indicating President Donald Trump's directive for the action. , the officials involved are "intelligence professionals who have abused the public trust by politicizing and manipulating intelligence, leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards." Neither she nor the memo presented evidence for these claims. The memo stated, “All personnel are reminded that holding a clearance is a privilege, not a right, and this privilege is contingent upon continued adherence to the principles and responsibilities of our profession.” The officials, , will no longer have access to “classified systems, facilities, materials, and information.” Additionally, any “contracts or employment” between these individuals and the U.S. government have been terminated. Some of the officials were involved in gathering information and making assessments on . Concurrently, others had signed a public letter during Trump’s first term, supporting calls for an into the President. There has been considerable discussion regarding the removal of staffers perceived as disloyal to Trump. Far-right political activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer recently established a “” encouraging her followers to contact her if they “know an Obama-Biden holdover inside the Trump Admin who needs to be exposed for their misdeeds.” “Laura Loomer is a great patriot. She’s a very strong person,” in April, amidst questions about her potential influence after National Security Council staffers were fired following Loomer’s meeting with the President. “She makes recommendations on things and people, and sometimes I listen to those recommendations, like I do with everybody. I listen to everybody, and then I make a decision.” Meanwhile, in an with Fox News on Tuesday, Gabbard asserted she had unclassified “hundreds of pages” of documents detailing the “creation of Russia-gate, this manufactured intelligence assessment that essentially had the intent of undermining the voices and votes of the American people who elected Donald Trump.” , the National Security Agency’s chief responsible AI officer, was among those whose clearance was revoked. The NSA official previously served as the during investigations into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mark Zaid, a lawyer who frequently represents former and current government intelligence officials, has publicly responded to the Gabbard memo.“The vast majority of these individuals are not household names and are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential Administrations,” . “Pure politicization of security clearance process. These are unlawful decisions that deviate from decades of precedent.” Gabbard stated in July that she was of an “Obama Administration conspiracy to subvert Trump’s 2016 victory and presidency” to the Department of Justice “for criminal referral.”  “Obama himself manufactured the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. Crooked Hillary [Clinton], Sleepy Joe [Biden], and numerous others participated in this, the crime of the century! Irrefutable evidence,” in the days after Gabbard’s announcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi then instructed the Department of Justice on August 5 to investigate the origins of inquiries into Russian interference favoring Trump during both the 2016 and 2020 elections. In March, Trump for former President Joe Biden, as well as members of the Biden family. Other high-profile Democrats, including former presidential candidate Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former National Security Advisor Jacob Sullivan, and former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, also had their privileges rescinded. it was “no longer in the national interest” for these individuals to possess security clearances.  In his directive, he stated, “I hereby direct every executive department and agency head to take all additional action as necessary and consistent with existing law to revoke any active security clearances held by the aforementioned individuals and to immediately rescind their access to classified information.” 

Canada's Pierre Poilievre has returned following an electoral setback. The leader of the Conservative Party was victorious on Monday in Battle River-Crowfoot, a Conservative electoral district in Alberta where he has never resided. He can now finally return to Parliament after the embarrassment of losing his own Carleton seat in Ottawa during the federal election in April, an election which saw the Conservatives fall to a Liberal Party led by former central banker Mark Carney. Poilievre secured his by-election victory with a comfortable majority. A casual observer might assume that with such a healthy margin, few would be demanding Poilievre resign as Conservative leader, mistaking one parliamentary district for the entire country—or the party. That's a fair enough mistake. Some individuals, it's true, were advocating only months ago for him to remain in his role. After all, the Conservatives had achieved a strong general election performance with significant gains, but were unable to secure power. Poilievre was considered a steady hand who just needed to wait for the Liberals to self-destruct, which, as all Liberals eventually do, was seen as inevitable. April transitioned into May and June, and as summer settled in, the Liberals remained robust as Carney continued to outmaneuver the Conservatives by granting them nearly everything they desired. There was an ironic twist to this, with Poilievre largely getting his way—the end of the unpopular carbon tax, balanced budgets, lower internal trade barriers, and a government fully committed to building infrastructure. When Air Canada flight attendants recently threatened to strike, Carney’s labor minister requested the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene, a move one might have expected from Poilievre. Critics have been asking whether, with Liberals like these, one even needs Conservatives, or Poilievre, at least. In January, Poilievre faces a leadership review, and now is the opportune time to question whether he should remain in his position. The answer, increasingly, appears to be no. Of course, he won his by-election with ease. However, it is one of the safest Conservative seats in Canada and was vacated by Damien Kurek, who stepped aside so his leader could easily return to office. It was a move that both undermined and affirmed Poilievre’s leadership, given he had to contest such an effortlessly winnable district when only months earlier he seemed a certain candidate for Prime Minister. Since April, Poilievre has been unable to gain ground against Carney’s Liberals. A major issue for the Conservative leader is that when voters encounter him, when they get to know him, they tend to dislike him, which places his party at a structural disadvantage. Polling data from the Angus Reid Institute reveals the Conservative leader’s unfavorability numbers remain persistently high. Dating back to the fall of 2022, more than 50% of those surveyed expressed a dislike for Poilievre. That figure never improved beyond 49% and currently stands at 57%. His numbers are particularly disheartening among women and younger voters, but even within the 55+ age bracket that traditionally votes Conservative, Poilievre manages only 39% approval. Moreover, during the last federal election, where leadership was a consistent theme amidst the unprecedented threats from President Donald Trump to make Canada the “51st state” and impose devastating tariffs, Carney outpaced Poilievre on likability and governance qualities. In July, Abacus Data found that Carney still held a substantial lead, an advantage that, should it persist, could help the Liberals eventually convert their parliamentary minority into a majority. Poilievre stated in July that “every election comes with lessons.” However, his tone never shifted. He remained the same doctrinaire culture warrior. In August, Poilievre attacked a proposed new tax, calling it “Carney’s tax” in a move reminiscent of his party’s “axe the tax” battle against carbon pricing. This strategy emerges as Trump continues his protectionist stance. But the focus makes Poilievre appear too close to Trump and risks backfiring if Carney proceeds to once again abandon a Liberal-era policy. Perhaps the most damning indictment of Poilievre is that he has become redundant. He is a less capable, less experienced, less likable iteration of a business Liberal committed to low taxes, a lean regulatory regime, and infrastructure and resource development. The Conservatives would benefit from a reset—a return to the drawing board. They need an approachable leader who at the very least appears to possess the capacity to connect with ordinary people from time to time. The odds suggest that the Liberals, now approaching a decade in power, will eventually undermine themselves, as all governments typically do. However, Poilievre has proven unwilling or unable to adapt to a political moment distinct from the period of prosperity his party enjoyed before Trump and tariffs. For that reason alone, there is good cause for the Conservatives to replace Poilievre sooner rather than later. Come January, if the party has not experienced improved fortunes, some Conservatives might attempt just that.

A widespread lack of awareness regarding American agriculture, which forms the bedrock of our food system, is evident even in my own home. I recently posed a question to one of my sons: “How many dairy farmers do you believe operate in this nation? What about corn, bean, and wheat cultivators?” His immediate response was “Ten million.” In reality, there are 24,000 dairy farmers and 400,000 agricultural producers. Our internal projections suggest these numbers are poised to decrease further, to 21,000 and 300,000 respectively. Overall, the current number of farms represents merely 28% of what existed nine decades ago. This summer, I’ve visited farms nationwide. While observing their optimism and eagerness as they approach harvest, anticipating the fruits of their labor, I also perceived a deep-seated concern this year—a sobering yet pragmatic warning of an impending crisis with no clear refuge. Currently, grain farmers are navigating the most difficult economic conditions since 2009. Food stability directly impacts national security. Trade routes are undergoing changes. Interest rates remain elevated. Commodity values are declining. The workforce is inadequate and hard to access, and the future of a new Farm Bill, along with its customary protective measures, is uncertain. While some of these challenges are not novel, their intricate interplay and rapid intensification are. It’s not an isolated problem; it’s a confluence of many issues. Farm bankruptcies have approximately , in comparison to last year. These circumstances impact not only farmers themselves but also the communities they belong to. Just over five years ago, I that farmers were in a state of crisis, largely ignored by America. At that time, I underscored the market volatility and natural catastrophes, and their immediate repercussions on those who supply our food, and crucially, on their residential and working communities. Certain aspects of the food system and its supporting communities have persistently remained unchanged. In 2024, , a primary indicator of profitability, saw an $8.2 billion reduction—a 5.6% decline, coming after a 19.4% decrease in 2023. Furthermore, the median farm income for farm households is projected to be a negative $328 in 2025. Consider the implications: a full year of dedicated labor resulting in a $328 loss. Most analyses suggest that fewer than 5% of farms will generate a profit this year, marking the third consecutive year of such trends. Indeed, almost 90% of farm families depend on external income to sustain their operations and provide for their households. The availability of labor and immigration-related concerns are intensifying these difficulties. Moreover, shifting trade policies have closed off certain conventional markets precisely when exports are gaining strength and is advancing towards food self-reliance. Climatic conditions remain a problem, with , , and frequently appearing in news reports. While technology offers potential solutions, broadband access in rural areas remains insufficient despite the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed in 2021. Twenty percent of rural inhabitants lack access to . The absence of technology severely limits access to healthcare and opportunities for new employment. Furthermore, the automation of farm operations has reached unprecedented costs. Next year will mark the crop planted in U.S. history. While commodity grain prices persist at low levels, agricultural input expenses are escalating. Farmers accumulated savings and made investments four years ago when strong commodity markets offered some profitability and natural disaster aid was available. For many, these reserves are now depleted. With private equity firms increasingly acquiring farmland financially, consolidation patterns are evolving. In Iowa alone, of its 30 million acres of agricultural land are slated for ownership change. When corporations, rather than families, own farms, local communities decline. Contract farming fails to foster deep community connections. Additionally, the farming population is aging. There are individuals aged 75 and above than those under 35. As a cooperative owned by farmers, we observe numerous members striving diligently to retain their farms within their families. Although consumers might not yet fully grasp the implications of the looming challenges for U.S. agriculture, their awareness is crucial. I frequently emphasize the need to prioritize policy over politics. This situation is not political; it’s a matter of practicality. These issues have developed over decades. Historically, the American food system has been characterized by stability, safety, and affordability. Farmers have consistently borne the most significant risks within the food supply chain, and this burden is becoming intolerably heavy, with no foreseeable relief. What actions can be taken? We require a strong trade strategy that facilitates market entry for U.S. goods. We need immigration reform that simultaneously ensures border security and addresses our labor shortages. Furthermore, a new Farm Bill is essential to offer stability to American farmers during this unpredictable period. These are the primary catalysts, though certainly, other avenues for assistance exist. Farmers exhibit resilience, fortitude, and practicality. Incidentally, 20% of the U.S. populace resides in rural America, and they account for 44% of military personnel. A strong sense of service is deeply embedded within the farming community. It is imperative that we heed the approaching crisis before it becomes irreversible. This is the message I convey to my children during our family meals.

Peace extends beyond the cessation of conflict; it's the bedrock of health security. Since January, clashes between M23 rebels and the Congolese army in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have displaced hundreds of thousands. The war in eastern DRC has significantly hampered efforts to control the spread of deadly diseases in a region already grappling with outbreaks of mpox, Ebola, cholera, malaria, and measles. In 2023, as the world recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic, the DRC reported over 12,000 suspected mpox cases, a viral illness similar to smallpox. The outbreak of war in January worsened the epidemics in eastern DRC, damaging healthcare infrastructure and severely restricting access to health services, especially vaccinations. Most mpox cases in the DRC originated in conflict-affected areas, turning these communities into centers of uncontrolled disease transmission. As the leader of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, a public health agency of the African Union, I mobilized response teams with the World Health Organization and other partners. We intervened with disease surveillance, vaccination, case management, and risk communication to curb the spread of mpox. The armed conflict in eastern DRC greatly hindered our containment efforts. Disease surveillance teams were grounded due to dangerous travel conditions. Clinics were looted, health workers attacked, and vaccines never reached their intended destinations. For conflict-area communities, the promise of vaccination remained unfulfilled. By July, the mpox outbreak had spread beyond the DRC, impacting lives and livelihoods in over 25 African countries. In 2024, African Union countries reported 72,506 mpox cases and 1,288 deaths. By late July, the number of mpox cases had reached 89,566 across 25 African Union countries, with 720 deaths reported by eight member states. On July 19, the DRC government and M23 rebels signed a Declaration of Principles in Qatar, committing to a ceasefire, which provides an opportunity to rebuild health systems, restore early warning systems, and deliver essential care to vulnerable communities. Without peace, diseases spread unhindered. With peace, outbreaks can be contained at their source. The situation in eastern DRC could determine whether the next pandemic is prevented or allowed to spread globally. Waging peace, preventing epidemics Health security is unattainable without peace. We commend the DRC peace agreement signatories' commitment to enhanced cross-border public health cooperation, including joint disease prevention in border regions, coordinated epidemic control, and information sharing to advance scientific research and health-related commercial opportunities. Peace facilitates the vaccination of vulnerable children, the testing and treatment of diseases such as malaria and mpox, and the restoration of underperforming early warning systems. It fosters trust, encouraging people to seek care, accept vaccines, and report symptoms. Without peace, even the best interventions fail, and mobile clinics can finally reach marginalized communities. Peace creates the environment to rebuild and transform the DRC’s health system into a resilient, inclusive, and community-centered system capable of withstanding future shocks and serving future generations. To achieve this, we need urgent investments in peace, health infrastructure, and equitable access to care. The Africa CDC proposed a plan to the United States, positioning health as a key driver of economic growth, peacebuilding, and regional integration, uniting the DRC, Rwanda, Angola, and Zambia. Aligned with U.S.–Africa health security partnerships, our proposal seeks $645 million to fund health systems in and around mining corridors—disease surveillance labs, emergency responses, worker and community health services—to mitigate the risk of future epidemics disrupting mines and critical mineral supply chains. This health finance initiative would serve as a catalyst for raising $3 billion in co-financing from development banks, private sectors, and philanthropic organizations for health-related mining infrastructure. Our proposal offers a model for linking biosecurity with economic resilience by integrating health infrastructure into vital mineral corridors, deploying advanced bio-surveillance technologies, and creating up to 100,000 jobs through local manufacturing. It would ensure mineral security is supported by robust health systems across Central and Southern Africa. Rebuilding Africa’s health systems The DRC government must prioritize health in its recovery plan, including rebuilding healthcare facilities, investing in a skilled health workforce, strengthening disease surveillance systems, and ensuring timely community access to care. Outbreaks must be detected and contained early to prevent crises. Cross-border coordination and disease surveillance are vital because viruses do not recognize borders. As the mpox epidemic demonstrated, an outbreak in a remote village can escalate into a global emergency. International donors and global health agencies must shift from emergency aid to supporting health system rebuilding. This involves funding malaria prevention, mpox response, and resilient, community-based surveillance networks. Finally, the negotiating parties—the DRC, Rwanda, and M23 rebels—must uphold humanitarian access and protect the right to health as a cornerstone of peace. A permanent and respected ceasefire is essential. When diseases spread unchecked in an environment of silence, mistrust, and misinformation, we risk the next global pandemic. When communities are empowered, health systems are strong, and peace is more than a promise, it becomes a platform for health security and progress. The peace agreement in the DRC has the potential to shape the future for generations. The next outbreak can be stopped before it begins. A child with malaria can survive. Epidemics like mpox can be controlled at their origin. Peace marks the beginning of healing, rebuilding, and resilience. The United States and the world must not ignore this opportunity. ```

The White House has launched a TikTok account just weeks ahead of the deadline President Donald Trump extended, requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese entity or face a ban in the United States. The @whitehouse account debuted Tuesday evening and quickly amassed over 80,000 followers by early Wednesday. Trump's campaign previously utilized a TikTok account, which currently boasts over 15 million followers, leading up to the last presidential election. Trump's team claimed last year that his TikTok presence was "the most successful launch in political history," attributing it to his "secret sauce." "I am your voice," Trump declares in the inaugural video posted on the White House account, featuring a montage of him and a caption that reads, "America we are BACK! What's up TikTok?" America we are BACK! What’s up TikTok? "The Trump administration is dedicated to communicating President Trump's historic achievements for the American people to as many audiences as possible, across various platforms," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday. "President Trump's message resonated strongly on TikTok during his presidential campaign, and we look forward to building upon that success and communicating in a way that no other administration has before." Federal employees are prohibited from using TikTok on work devices, with limited exceptions, according to a law passed during the Biden Administration. Trump’s TikTok evolution The Trump Administration has been attempting to broker a deal for the sale of TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, to a non-Chinese entity by Sept. 17. The app faced a potential ban in the U.S. after President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan law last year mandating ByteDance to divest its stake in the app due to national security concerns. TikTok has maintained that a U.S. ban would violate the First Amendment, although the Supreme Court has upheld the ban. On the evening of Jan. 18, the app was temporarily removed from U.S. app stores, with users encountering a message stating: "Sorry, TikTok isn't available right now. A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately that means you can't use TikTok for now." However, the app was restored hours later after Trump announced that he had extended the deadline for ByteDance to sell. A message appeared on the app stating: "Thanks for your patience and support. As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.!" TikTok CEO, who attended Trump’s inauguration, thanked Trump for the extension in a video message. The President has since extended the deadline several more times, although a sale before the current September deadline appears unlikely. Trump stated in June that a deal with "a group of very wealthy people" was nearing completion, pending approval from Beijing. Trump has also suggested that his tough stance on China may have complicated the sale. Trump himself had previously identified TikTok as a national security threat during his first presidential term, leading to the ban on the app. "The proliferation in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in [China] continues to pose a threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States," reads an executive order signed by Trump in 2020. "The United States must take decisive action against the owners of TikTok to safeguard our national security." ```

The U.S. and Venezuela appear to be moving towards a confrontation, with neither nation showing an inclination to back down. On Monday, the Venezuelan government mobilized over four million militia troops, seemingly in response to reports of U.S. naval movements in the region. “We defend our seas, our skies, and our lands. We liberated them. We guard and patrol them. No empire will touch the sacred soil of Venezuela, nor should it touch the sacred soil of South America,” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro stated in a televised address Monday. Three U.S. Navy missile destroyers have been deployed to the waters off Venezuela, U.S. officials informed on Monday. “President Trump has been very clear and consistent. He’s prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday. Below is an overview of the current situation between the U.S. and Venezuela. Trump and Maduro have had longstanding hostilities Washington and Caracas formal bilateral diplomatic relations in 2019 during Trump’s first term, after Trump opposition leader in the Latin American country’s . The U.S. government Maduro’s last two , and the Trump Administration has repeatedly labeled Maduro’s presidency illegitimate, including as recently as Tuesday. “I know it very well, and Venezuela is right now being run by a dictator,” Trump in August last year, as he blamed the country for the flow of criminals and drugs into the U.S. and campaigned to crack down on it. Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden also opposed the Maduro government, which has suggested and has . Throughout Trump’s initial term, the U.S. imposed financial sanctions on Venezuela in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In 2020, Maduro was in a New York federal court on charges of narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and other charges. And the tensions between Trump and the Venezuelan leader have only intensified during Trump’s second term. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration to $50 million for information leading to Maduro’s arrest. The Administration also accused Maduro of being “one of the world’s largest drug traffickers” and the head of the so-called Cartel of the Suns, allegations that the Venezuelan government has rejected. The U.S. also alleged links between Maduro and Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel, which Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said earlier this month her government has no evidence of. Attorney General Pam Bondi that the U.S. government had seized up to $700 million of assets with alleged links to Maduro on Aug. 13, including luxury goods, bank accounts, and private jets. Trump has advocated for using the U.S. military to dismantle cartels. In February, he designated Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, as well as six groups in Mexico and MS-13 in El Salvador, as foreign terrorist organizations. The President signed a secret directive to the Pentagon to use military force against these cartels, sources told the earlier this month. The Administration has sought to counter the inflow of drugs, especially fentanyl, through , such as on Canada, China, and Mexico, citing the countries’ “failure” to stop fentanyl smuggling into the U.S. And Trump penalty tariffs on countries that buy oil from Venezuela in March, highlighting the threat of Tren de Aragua to the U.S. Trump has also targeted Venezuelans on immigration issues, of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants in the U.S. and in March to an El Salvadoran prison as part of a claiming to target alleged gang members. U.S. courts have ordered the return of several of those who were , while many other deportees reject the allegations against them. Trump sends missile destroyers to Venezuelan waters On Monday, the U.S. government ordered three U.S. Navy missile destroyers—USS Gravely, USS Jason Dunham and USS Sampson—and around 4,000 military personnel to the edge of Venezuela’s territorial waters, according to Reuters. The Administration confirmed to last week that it had ordered naval movements as part of an effort to impede drug trafficking. The Trump Administration is also committing additional military assets in the broader region within international airspace and waters, including several P-8 spy planes, warships, and an attack submarine, an official told Reuters. Venezuela mobilizes millions of militia fighters “This week, I will activate a special plan with more than 4.5 million militiamen to ensure coverage of the entire national territory—militias that are prepared, activated and armed,” Maduro said Monday. The Venezuelan Militia was established in 2005 by the late President Hugo Chávez and formally constituted in 2010. Maduro’s plan will involve mobilizing peasant and worker militias “in all factories and workplaces in the country” and providing “missiles and rifles for the working class, to defend our homeland,” the Venezuelan President said Monday. Maduro called U.S. threats “rotten rehashes” and “extravagant, bizarre, and outlandish.” The Venezuelan government also temporarily banned the purchase, sale, and operation of drones in Venezuelan airspace on Tuesday. A drone laden with explosives detonated near Maduro in 2018 in an apparent assassination attempt, which resulted in the , including one who later , and the , including opposition leader Juan Requesens. “Washington’s accusing Venezuela of drug trafficking reveals its lack of credibility and the failure of its policies in the region,” Venezuela’s foreign ministry said in a Tuesday statement. “While Washington threatens, Venezuela advances firmly in peace and sovereignty, demonstrating that true effectiveness against crime is achieved by respecting the independence of the people. Every aggressive declaration confirms the inability of imperialism to subdue a free and sovereign people.”