Deadline: White House – “Who’s in charge?”

Date: January 5, 2026
Host: Nicolle Wallace (MS NOW)
Panelists: Claire McCaskill (Political Analyst, former Senator), Ambassador Michael McFaul (former Ambassador to Russia), Margaret Donovan (former Army Captain/JAG, lecturer at Yale Law), David Noriega (reporter), Andrew Weissman (legal analyst, former DOJ official)

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the aftermath and controversy surrounding the United States' military operation in Venezuela, resulting in the capture of President Maduro and his wife. Nicolle Wallace leads a panel discussion dissecting the incoherence of US policy messaging, legal justifications, strategic objectives, and the broader implications for American democracy, foreign policy, and political accountability under President Trump's administration. The episode also touches on threats toward other nations, the domestic political fallout, and the anniversary of January 6th.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Who Is in Charge in Venezuela?

• Conflicting Statements: Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio provide inconsistent explanations regarding who now leads Venezuela and under what authority the US acts.
  • Rubio claims: "We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition." ([02:17])
  • Law enforcement vs. invasion: Officials insist it's a "law enforcement operation" rather than a military occupation, muddying the legal waters ([03:15])
• Legal and Practical Contradictions: The administration oscillates between framing the action as "arrest" vs. "military intervention", raising questions about legal justification.

“Don't ask me who's in charge because I'll give you an answer and it'll be very controversial.”
—Ambassador McFaul (playing Rubio), [03:03]

2. Public and Congressional Backlash

• Lack of Authorization & Public Support: Recent polling shows broad public opposition to military intervention in Venezuela; Congress was bypassed.
• Consolidation of Executive Power: Historian Heather Cox Richardson is cited, warning of the administration's disregard for popular and legislative objections to power grabs. ([04:22])

3. Expert Panel: Legal, Strategic, and Democratic Issues

Margaret Donovan’s Top Concerns ([05:40])

• Clarity of US Mission: “What are we doing? We have heard so many different versions…” ([05:40])
• Presidential Credibility: Seeking rules to determine when the president’s word is to be believed ([06:22])
• Legal Justification: Calling for release of internal legal opinions on the operation ([06:38])

Claire McCaskill’s Reflections ([09:25])

• Historical Parallels: Cautions against repeating Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya-style interventions.
• Oil Motivation: Speculates that access to Venezuelan oil drives administration’s interest, not democratic ideals.
• Democratic Inertia: Notes improbability of bipartisan restraint before the next election.

“If they hand over oil, if they allow American companies to come in and grab the wealth of their country, then I think Trump will be fine with bad guys being in charge forever.”
—Claire McCaskill, [10:30]

Ambassador Michael McFaul’s International Lens

• Doctrine of Spheres of Influence: Draws parallels between US action in Venezuela and Russian claims over Ukraine ([12:33])
• Failure to Promote Democracy: Argues Trump undermined Venezuelan democratic opposition, left Maduro’s regime mostly intact, prioritized oil.
• Strategic Blunder: Asserts no US national interest is served and international reputation suffers.

“The president of the United States is on the side of the autocrats ... There’s just one guy winging it ... and this doesn’t serve the interests of the American people.”
—Amb. McFaul, [24:51]

4. Internal MAGA Contradictions and Political Fallout

• MAGA Base Fracturing: Highlighted by criticisms from Steve Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene over foreign entanglements and lack of transparency (Epstein files).
• McCaskill: Outlines the “three legs of the stool” supporting MAGA: isolationism (America First), hardline immigration, and economic populism; only immigration is being delivered. ([19:12])

“I do think that the base is frayed at this point. I think there’s some real divisions over Israel and other things, and certainly over Epstein.”
—Claire McCaskill, [20:34]

5. Reactions in Latin America & International Consequences

Colombia as a New Target ([28:45])

• Trump Threatens Colombia: Publicly accuses President Petro of drug trafficking and hints at a possible US military operation. ([28:03])
• Colombian Alarm: Government sources express outrage at “naked imperialism” and concern about border instability due to chaos in Venezuela.
• Potential for Political Interference: Fears that US will intervene in upcoming Colombian elections.

“The reaction is mixed ... The idea that he would threaten to do the same thing here [in Colombia] is shocking and outrageous to them.”
—David Noriega, [28:45]

6. Distracting from Trump’s Domestic Controversies

• January 6th Anniversary: The panel argues the Venezuela crisis distracts from the insurrection’s fifth anniversary and the ongoing investigation into Trump. ([34:05])
• The Epstein Files: Ongoing lack of transparency and compliance from the DOJ further erodes public trust.

Andrew Weissman on Accountability ([35:51])

• Jack Smith’s Testimony: Deliberately released at a time of low attention to bury bad news for Trump.

“It’s a real tell ... people are trying to bury a story when they release it on that day...”
—Andrew Weissman, [35:51]

• Calls for Focus: Importance of remaining attentive to both domestic and international lawlessness.

Claire McCaskill on January 6th’s Legacy ([38:45])

• Enduring Damage: Expresses dismay that perpetrators are now honored by a major political party; calls out the lack of accountability.

“It is hard to frankly believe that those folks are now treated with honor by one of our political parties. They are heroes to one ... That says a whole lot about how far off track we are.”
—Claire McCaskill, [39:00]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments with Timestamps

• “Don’t ask me who's in charge because I'll give you an answer and it'll be very controversial.”
  —Amb. McFaul (as Rubio), [03:03]

• “Are we more secure? Are we more prosperous? Is our reputation enhanced by all this? And the unequivocal answer is no.”
  —Amb. McFaul, [13:40]

• “It would have been so easy ... to just say, you know what, Machado and the democratically elected person is in charge now ... That would have solved so many legal problems for the administration.”
  —Margaret Donovan, [23:20]

• "The president of the United States is on the side of the autocrats..."
  —Amb. McFaul, [24:51]

• “It is hard to frankly believe that those folks are now treated with honor by one of our political parties. They are heroes to one of our political parties. That says a whole lot about how far off track we are.”
  —Claire McCaskill on January 6th, [39:00]

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [01:05] — Episode focus: Who is in charge in Venezuela?
• [03:03] — Conflicting White House statements; “We’re in charge.”
• [05:40] — Margaret Donovan’s legal and operational questions
• [09:25] — McCaskill’s critique: oil, military use, and GOP silence
• [12:33] — McFaul’s analysis: international context, missed opportunities
• [19:12] — McCaskill on MAGA base contradictions
• [28:45] — Colombia reaction and regional consequences
• [34:05] — January 6th anniversary, domestic controversies resurface
• [35:51] — Weissman and McCaskill: media manipulation, lack of accountability

Episode Tone and Takeaways

• Tone: Urgent, critical, sometimes incredulous and acerbically humorous (“I counted this as the sixth articulation of what this was about” – [20:56]). The conversation is frank about both legal and moral failings as well as the strategic risks to US and global democracy.
• Takeaways:
  • The administration’s lack of transparency, internal division, and legal justification on Venezuela is creating international instability and domestic political risk.
  • Trump’s actions clash with his campaign messages (“America First”, no foreign wars), alienating even elements of the MAGA base.
  • The crisis is distracting the public from other urgent issues, notably the January 6th legacy and lack of accountability for both civil and criminal abuses.

Conclusion

This episode offers an unvarnished analysis of a rapidly evolving crisis—one not only about the fate of Venezuela, but the integrity of American institutions, the role of law, and the future of democracy at home and abroad. Through expert commentary and sharp political critique, it exposes the dangers of unchecked executive power and the importance of clarity, accountability, and principle in public service.