标签： North America

Former President Donald Trump has seemingly verified the deployment of an advanced sonic weapon during a military operation in Caracas, Venezuela, on January 3rd. During a televised interview with NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich that aired Tuesday night, Trump indirectly confirmed the use of this clandestine technology against Venezuelan and Cuban soldiers, an operation that resulted in numerous casualties including civilians.

When questioned about the existence and potential concerns surrounding such weaponry, Trump responded: ‘No one else has it. We have weapons that no one knows about. It’s probably better not to talk about it, but we have amazing weapons. It was an amazing attack.’

This marks not the first instance of White House insinuations regarding the weapon’s deployment during the assault, which culminated in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. On January 10th, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt circulated an English translation of an alleged interview with a Maduro-loyal security guard, though its authenticity remains unverified. The guard described experiencing ‘a very intense sound wave’ that caused internal head pressure, nasal bleeding, vomiting of blood, and temporary paralysis among personnel.

The development of sonic weapons, often categorized as ‘directed energy weapons’ or colloquially termed ‘pain rays,’ has been an acknowledged part of US military research. These systems utilize sound waves or focused microwaves to induce discomfort or incapacitate targets. Military analysis outlet The War Zone, through reporter Joseph Trevithick, noted that while no concrete evidence substantiates the weapon’s use in ‘Operation Absolute Resolve,’ the elite Delta Force unit leading the assault would be the most probable operator of such exotic non-lethal technology.

The revelation raises significant questions about the evolving nature of modern warfare and the ethical implications of deploying such advanced weaponry in international conflicts.

In a significant diplomatic shift, former President Donald Trump has withdrawn his threat to impose sweeping tariffs on European NATO members following what he described as a “very productive meeting” with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The tariffs, which were initially slated to begin February 1st, were intended as leverage to force negotiations for the United States to acquire Greenland.

The abrupt reversal came after Trump’s high-profile speech at Davos, where he insisted Greenland was vital for U.S. national security but pledged not to use military force to obtain it. Instead, he announced a new framework for negotiations focused on securing American strategic interests in the Arctic territory, which is currently an autonomous Danish territory.

According to Trump’s statements on Truth Social and in subsequent media interviews, the proposed arrangement would grant the U.S. permanent control over specific land parcels in Greenland for military installations and resource extraction. Trump emphasized the deal would last “forever” and specifically address mineral rights and the planned ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system—a comprehensive shield against long-range missiles.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen expressed cautious optimism, stating the day had “ended on a better note than it began” and indicating willingness to discuss American security concerns while respecting Denmark’s sovereignty. NATO spokeswoman Allison Hart confirmed the alliance’s commitment to ensuring Russia and China gain no economic or military foothold in Greenland through forthcoming trilateral negotiations between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland’s autonomous government.

The development follows Trump’s confrontational rhetoric at Davos, where he criticized French President Emmanuel Macron for what he called decades of France “screwing” the U.S. and admonished Canadian officials for their perceived ingratitude toward American protection. The resolution suggests a pragmatic compromise emerged behind the scenes, moving from Trump’s initial demand for outright purchase to a negotiated agreement on strategic access, though many details about the potential deal’s structure remain undisclosed.

In a remarkable address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, former U.S. President Donald Trump made headlines by explicitly ruling out military action to acquire Greenland while simultaneously asserting American ownership rights over the autonomous Danish territory. The controversial statements came during his high-profile appearance before global leaders on January 21, 2026.

Trump’s declaration marked a significant diplomatic moment as he addressed longstanding speculation about his administration’s territorial ambitions. “We probably won’t obtain anything unless I opt to employ excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable,” Trump stated before adding, “but I will refrain from doing so.”

The former president characterized his position as a major concession, suggesting that many had anticipated more aggressive actions. “That’s likely the most substantial statement I’ve made today, because many assumed I would resort to force,” he told the assembled international delegates. Trump repeatedly emphasized his opposition to military intervention, stating unequivocally: “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”

Despite disavowing military action, Trump maintained that the United States must ultimately secure ownership of the strategically valuable Arctic territory. This position continues a pattern of interest Trump demonstrated during his presidency, when he publicly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark in 2019, an offer that was promptly rejected by the Danish government and widely criticized internationally.

The latest remarks come amid renewed geopolitical competition in the Arctic region, where melting ice caps are opening new shipping routes and access to valuable natural resources. Greenland’s significance has grown substantially due to its strategic location and mineral wealth, making it a focal point for global powers including China, Russia, and the United States.

In a significant escalation of political tensions, the House Oversight Committee has formally moved to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress. The Wednesday vote, which garnered bipartisan support with several Democrats joining Republicans, centers on the Clintons’ refusal to comply with subpoenas issued as part of the committee’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The committee’s contempt measure now advances to the full House of Representatives for consideration. Should it secure approval there, the matter would be referred to the Department of Justice for potential enforcement action, raising unprecedented legal questions about compelling testimony from former first families.

This investigation seeks testimony regarding the Clintons’ associations with Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes. Photographic evidence places Bill Clinton in the financier’s company during the 1990s and early 2000s. Notably, no survivors of Epstein’s abuse have accused the former president of wrongdoing, and he has consistently denied any awareness of Epstein’s criminal activities during their acquaintance.

Legal representatives for the Clintons have vigorously challenged the subpoenas, characterizing them as ‘unenforceable’ while maintaining their clients have cooperated by providing all ‘limited information’ available to them concerning Epstein. The development marks a new chapter in the long-standing political scrutiny of the Clinton family and tests the boundaries of congressional oversight powers.