News

Court Adjourns ₦5.5bn Defamation Suit Against SERAP To Nov 12

https://www.channelstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SERAP-Logo.jpg

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Federal Capital Territory High Court has adjourned the hearing in a ₦5.5 billion alleged defamation suit instituted against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) by two aggrieved operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS), to November 12.

READ ALSO: SERAP Asks EFCC, ICPC To Probe NASS Over ₦3m Bribe-For-Bills Allegation

Justice Yusuf adjourned the hearing in the suit following the absence of SERAP’s lawyer, Ebun Adegboruwa SAN, in court.

The two DSS operatives, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogunleye, had filed the action against SERAP on the grounds that the organisation defamed them in a media publication.

SERAP Logo

Specifically, the two claimants alleged that SERAP defamed them by claiming that they unlawfully invaded their office, thereby putting their reputation as law-abiding security operatives in jeopardy.

They are asking the court to order Serap to pay the sum of ₦5.5 billion as compensation for damages they suffered.

The two claimants also applied to the judge to issue an order of perpetual injunction against SERAP, restraining it from defaming them.

At Thursday’s proceeding, SERAP’s lawyer, Ebun Adegboruwa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, wrote a letter to the court informing it that he would not be able to attend the proceeding as he had a matter at the Court of Appeal in Lagos and asked for an adjournment till November 12.

Counsel for the claimants, Akinlolu Kehinde, did not oppose the request for an adjournment.

Dylan Sprouse raises awareness for wife Barbara Palvin’s painful health condition

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article36078344.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_Victorias-Secret-Fashion-Show-2025-First-Looks.jpg

As Barbara Palvin wowed on the Victoria’s Secret runway, her husband Dylan Sprouse brought awareness around a often misunderstood condition that affects one in ten women

Hungarian model Barbara Palvin dropped jaws during 2025’s Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show as she strutted down the runway despite having recently broken her foot. However, that wasn’t the only major health issue the 32-year-old had recently experience.

Her husband Dylan Sprouse stood on the red carpet offering a heartwarming gesture of support in the form of a yellow endometriosis ribbon pin. In an interview with E! News, the former The Suite Life of Zack & Cody star revealed that he was handing out the pins to raise awareness for Barbara’s health condition.

“I brought this endometriosis awareness pin. You want one? Because Barbara just went through endo surgery and I’m handing these out tonight,” he told interviewers.

READ MORE: Vote on Israel’s Eurovision participation cancelled as nations plan to boycottREAD MORE: YouTubers Dan and Phil say 16-year relationship came at a cost as they confirm hidden romance

In August, the model and actress revealed that she recently had surgery for endometriosis after struggling with symptoms for several years. “Hi guys, it’s been a while!” Barbara shared in an Instagram post, before encouraging others to seek treatment if they suspected they might also suffer from the disease.

Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to those in the lining of the womb grow in other parts of the body. Symptoms occur when patches of endometriosis bleed during your period but have nowhere to go and can include severe period pain, heavy periods and pain when you use the toilet, according to the NHS.

The chronic disease affects 1 in 10 women and those assigned female at birth in the UK, making it the second-most common gynaecological condition. Despite that, many individuals face long delays in diagnosis and limited treatment options, according to The Endometriosis Foundation.

For more stories like this subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Weekly Gulp, for a curated roundup of trending stories, poignant interviews, and viral lifestyle picks from The Mirror’s Audience U35 team delivered straight to your inbox.

Dylan described Barbara as “so strong” for going through treatment by herself. He also revealed that Barbara’s social media posts had a massive impact on their following. He shared: “It turns out a ton of people reached out to her, a ton of women who had experienced the same things.”

He added: “I just don’t think there’s a lot of awareness about it. Some people were even reaching out and saying that they didn’t realise they had those symptoms until I got diagnosed after seeing [Barbara] post about it.

“So I’m hoping that if this is even a small measure of something we can do then I hope it helps.”

Article continues below

Other celebrities that have opened up about their struggles with the chronic condition, including Molly-Mae Hague, Lori Harvey and Sacha Parkinson.

Diane Keaton’s cause of death and heartbreaking final days -including 911 call

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article36065669.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_FILE-October-11-2025-Diane-Keaton-Dies-At-79-Los-Angeles-Premiere-Of-Gravitas-Premieres-Mack-A.jpg

Diane Keaton’s cause of death has been revealed along with her heartbreaking final days where she ‘declined very suddenly’ and called 911 before she was pronounced dead

Diane Keaton’s cause of death has been revealed by her family in an emotional statement where they detailed how the Hollywood star died of pneumonia. A source said Diane’s health had declined ‘suddenly’ before her tragic death, as relatives thanked fans for their ongoing support.

The Oscar-winning actress’s family also urged beloved fans to donate to an animal shelter or a charity which helps homeless people, as they highlighted Diane’s love for animals and passion for helping others.

Following Diane’s death at age 79, her family released a statement and revealed the actress died following a short battle with pneumonia. The statement added: “The Keaton family are very grateful for the extraordinary messages of love and support they have received these past few days on behalf of their beloved Diane,” reports People.

READ MORE: Tragic reason Diane Keaton always covered her neck up and wore hatsREAD MORE: Diane Keaton’s ex Woody Allen breaks silence on her death with heartfelt tribute

“She loved her animals and she was steadfast in her support of the unhoused community, so any donations in her memory to a local food bank or an animal shelter would be a wonderful and much-appreciated tribute to her.”

A source claimed to People on October 11 that the actress’ health ‘declined very suddenly’ and that her tragic death ‘was so unexpected’.

The source added: “In her final months, she was surrounded only by her closest family, who chose to keep things very private. Even longtime friends weren’t fully aware of what was happening.”

Shortly after her death was announced, Diane’s final moments were laid bare in a released 911 call after the audio was reportedly obtained by TMZ. The reports claim that emergency services were called to her property in Los Angeles after 8am on Saturday morning, before she was transported to hospital. The actress was later pronounced dead.

Close friends of Diane also reported to People that they were shocked by how much weight she had lost in the weeks before her passing. Songwriter Carole Bayer Sager, said: “She had lost so much weight,” Sager said. “I saw her two or three weeks ago and she was very thin.”

The Oscar-winning actress was best known for her work in films like The Godfather, Annie Hall, The First Wives Club and Something’s Got To Give. Keaton also worked with director Nancy Meyers multiple times on projects like the Book Club series.

She received numerous accolades throughout her career, including an Oscar, a BAFTA, Golden Globe Awards and nominations for two Emmy Awards and a Tony Award. The late actress was romantically involved with Hollywood stars like Woody Allen, her Godfather co-star Al Pacino and Warren Beatty.

Article continues below

She never married but became a mother at the age of 50 when she adopted two children. She said of becoming a parent after the death of her father: “Motherhood has completely changed me. It’s just about like the most completely humbling experience that I’ve ever had.”

Molly-Mae’s Hague’s tense relationship with Tommy ahead of tell-all Amazon series

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article36077948.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/1_Molly-Mae-surprises-Tommy-Fury-with-unexpected-reunion.jpg

Molly-Mae and Tommy are back together following their split in 2024, but the couple’s relationship has some key differences now that will be discussed in season two of Behind It All

For years, Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury were Love Island’s golden couple. But after a turbulent 2024 that saw the pair split as Tommy struggled with a drinking problem and they faced infidelity rumours, the couple are now rebuilding their relationship.

Viewers will shortly get some insight into how they are doing on season two of Molly-Mae’s Prime series Behind It All. But ahead of the show launch, here is what we know about the couple’s relationship as it currently stands.

The pair met on Love Island in 2019 and continued to develop a happy relationship for many years, welcoming their daughter Bambi to the world in January 2023.

READ MORE: Molly-Mae Hague laughs off Bambi’s furious biting admission in hilarious way

READ MORE: Molly-Mae Hague ‘on edge’ as she prepares for documentary release

Their engagement in Ibiza later in 2023 appeared to cement their fairytale image. But just a year later, things fell apart. Tommy later admitted that a sports injury took a toll on his mental health, and he turned to drink to cope.

He told Men’s Health: “We broke up because I had a problem with alcohol and I couldn’t be the partner that I wanted to be anymore. I couldn’t train, box, lift weights… I’d lost my whole identity.”

He admitted to drinking heavily — sometimes up to “20 shots a night” — and added that this period of his life left him “unrecognisable”.

For Molly-Mae, the breakup was devastating. In the first series of her Prime Video documentary Molly-Mae: Behind It All, she confessed: “The last couple of months have been like the worst couple of months of my life. The feeling of a breakup, it’s like a physical pain — your heart actually hurts.”

Despite her heartbreak, she always held onto hope that their story wasn’t over. At the end of the first series, she shared: “The dream is still the same. That we’ll all be happy in that house together and have more children…I know we’ve got something completely worth saving.”

Molly-Mae officially confirmed that she got back together with Tommy in May this year, but there are some key differences to their relationship this time around.

She told Cosmopolitan: “We’re back together, and we’re just navigating our way through — forming our relationship again in the public eye and really just figuring it all out.”

The influencer said they are “in a much better place”, but also revealed that they are still living separately. “We’re still in two houses,” she said. “It’s a strange dynamic because we’re together, but we’re also living quite separate lives. I’m hoping that will change quite soon.”

Sources have also claimed that staff at Molly-Mae’s recent brand events were told not to ask questions about her relationship with Tommy, so the couple appear to be attempting to keep their love life more private now.

Molly-Mae seems to have turned more of her focus towards her thriving business empire and her daughter Bambi, but she did admit her heart is still set on growing an even larger family with Tommy.

“I’m desperate to give Bambi a sibling,” she said. “I was the younger sister, so I benefited even more from having someone to guide me and someone to look up to. I’d want that for Bambi, but I would never want to do it just for her – I’d want to do it also because it’s something I want to do.”

Molly-Mae’s sister Zoe has expressed her fears that Tommy’s drinking problems will crop up again and cause issues in the couple’s relationship, but the influencer seems confident that he has made huge progress with his personal issues.

In season one of Behind It All, she told Zoe: “He’s not drank now, like for what four months. But no, I don’t think the drink’s gone away forever. Could drink still be a problem for us? Potentially yes. But the break-up showed I was serious.

“I love Tommy so much and I love our family so much that I’m willing to ride the wave. And that’s not something that everyone wants to do, but it’s something that I’m willing to do because I want my family.”

Article continues below

*Molly-Mae: Behind It All Series 2 (Episodes 1–3) launches exclusively on Prime Video on 18th October. Episodes 4-6 episodes will follow in early 2026.

Pulev ‘has to face Itauma’, not Gassiev – Warren

Getty Images

Promoter Frank Warren says Kubrat Pulev must defend his WBA ‘regular’ title against British heavyweight Moses Itauma next.

Bulgarian Pulev has announced plans to fight Russian Murat Gassiev on 12 December, despite being ordered to face 20-year-old Itauma.

Queensberry’s Warren, who promotes Itauma, said earlier this week that his team were “pursuing” a fight with Pulev.

That was after the WBA ordered the match-up and gave both sides 30 days to negotiate a deal.

But 44-year-old Pulev’s promoter Ivaylo Gotzev, who is the CEO of Epic Sports and Entertainment, said on Thursday that the WBA has agreed to let the veteran make a voluntary defence, rather than the mandatory Itauma fight.

Gotzev said: “Despite recent noise, we have an official WBA resolution authorising Kubrat Pulev’s first title defence to be a voluntary, and in line with that, we’ve locked in a terrific opponent in Murat Gassiev.”

In an earlier statement issued to media, Gotzev had claimed the Pulev-Gassiev fight was “signed and sealed” and that Itauma would have “to wait his turn”. It also said Itauma had been offered a place on the Pulev-Gassiev undercard.

An updated statement, however, removed direct mention of Itauma by name.

BBC Sport has seen a WBA notice from 14 October that orders Pulev to take on Itauma as his next opponent.

Speaking to BBC Sport on Thursday, Warren said: “Pulev has to fight Moses next.”

Chatham fighter Itauma, 20, extended his undefeated record to 13 wins with 11 knockouts by stopping former world title challenger Dillian Whyte inside two minutes in August.

Filip Hrgovic, Michael Hunter and domestic rival David Adeleye have been suggested among other potential opponents as Itauma looks to move closer to a world title shot.

Gotzev had said in the initial media statement that an undercard slot for Itauma on the Pulev-Gassiev bill would be “the perfect stage for him to face the winner of the main event” and would be in keeping with WBA plans.

Team Pulev now say that an agreement with the WBA had been violated and they expect the order to fight Itauma to be withdrawn.

Related topics

  • Boxing
    • 1 day ago
    Joseph Parker faces off with Fabio Wardley at a news conference
    • 28 April 2024
    Split image of Claressa Shields, Paddy Pimblett and Chris Eubank Jr

More boxing from the BBC

    • 16 August
    BBC Sport microphone and phone

Trump approves CIA operations in Venezuela: What we know, and what’s next

United States President Donald Trump confirmed on Wednesday that he has authorised the CIA to carry out secret operations in Venezuela.

The New York Times first disclosed the directive, quoting US officials who privately said the administration’s strategy is focused on removing President Nicolas Maduro from power.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Trump also said his administration was mulling a land attack on Venezuela, amid sharply escalating tensions after multiple US strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean Sea in recent weeks and a troop build-up in those waters ordered by the US president.

Maduro appeared on national television Wednesday night, urging restraint and caution against any further escalation.

“No to regime change that reminds us of the failed wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya … No to coups d’état carried out by the CIA … Latin America does not want them, does not need them, and rejects them,” said the Venezuelan president in response to Trump’s announcement.

So what might Trump be planning? Are his moves legal? How has Venezuela responded, and what does history tell us about what covert CIA operations in Latin America might look like?

What did Trump announce?

“Why did you authorise the CIA to go into Venezuela?” a journalist asked the US president at a White House news conference.

“I authorised for two reasons, really,” Trump said.

“Number one, they [Venezuela] have emptied their prisons into the United States of America.

“And the other thing are drugs. We have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea, so you get to see that, but we’re going to stop them by land also,” he added.

When asked if the CIA “had the authority to take out Maduro”, Trump demurred – refusing to rule out regime change, though not committing to it, either.

“Oh, I don’t want to answer a question like that … That’s a ridiculous question for me to be given … not really a ridiculous question, but it would be a ridiculous question for me to answer. But I think Venezuela is feeling heat,” Trump added.

What operations has the US already carried out?

The US has carried out at least five strikes on boats in Venezuelan waters, alleging that the boats were carrying drugs, and killing a total of 27 people.

The latest attack took place on Tuesday, Trump said.

“Under my standing authorities as commander-in-chief, this morning, the Secretary of War, ordered a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO) conducting narcotrafficking in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility – just off the Coast of Venezuela,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. He added that six “male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel” were killed.

The first US strike on a Venezuelan boat was on September 2, killing 11 people. Two more attacks were carried out on September 15 and 19, each killing three people. A fourth strike occurred on October 3, with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reporting four people killed.

Trump and his administration have so far not provided any evidence that these bombed boats were carrying narcotics headed for the US.

Can the president launch secret or military actions without Congress?

Experts have previously told Al Jazeera that US strikes on Venezuelan boats possibly broke international law and went against the US Constitution.

Declared operations on Venezuelan land, whether by the CIA or the US military, would go even beyond maritime strikes in testing the legal authority of the president.

Salvador Santino Regilme, an associate professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands, explained to Al Jazeera last month that the use of deadly force during maritime operations must respect the right to life and adhere to the principles of law enforcement necessity and proportionality.

“UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] and the 1988 UN Drug Trafficking Convention emphasise cooperation, boarding and consent mechanisms at sea, not summary destruction. Any strike that kills suspected traffickers should trigger a prompt, independent, and transparent investigation,” Regilme said.

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein was even more definitive in his criticism of the US maritime operations.

“Any use of the military [except] in self-defence to an actual attack requires express congressional statutory authorisation. The military attack on the alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers was unconstitutional,” Fein told Al Jazeera last month.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law that requires the US president to obtain Congressional approval before committing to war. It also mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of initiating any military action.

Fein told Al Jazeera that there would need to be a public vote in Congress for the approval of such a strike, and such a vote has not taken place.

At the beginning of his term, Trump designated Venezuelan drug cartels as foreign terrorist organisations. In a statement to Al Jazeera in August, Fein said this designation is “illegal because [it is] contrary to the statutory standards to qualify as a Foreign Terrorist Organization “.

The standards, according to the US Constitution, are that a group must be based outside the US, involved in terrorist acts or activities, and its terrorism must pose a threat to the safety of US citizens or to US national security.

Trump has also repeatedly alleged that Maduro’s administration is behind the Venezuelan drug cartels that the US administration has branded “terrorist” organisations, even though US intelligence agencies have themselves said there is no evidence to back this assertion.

How has Venezuela reacted?

Venezuela accused the US of violating international law and the United Nations charter.

“The purpose of US actions is to create legitimacy for an operation to change the regime in Venezuela, with the ultimate goal of taking control of all the country’s resources,” the government said in a statement.

Maduro also rebuked the CIA’s involvement in different parts of the world, without explicitly referencing Trump’s authorisation of the CIA to carry out operations in Venezuela.

Carlos Pina, a Venezuelan political scientist, said Trump’s announcement could unify Maduro’s political base domestically.

“Today, the Venezuelan president once again denounced US interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs and, in particular, reinforced the anti-colonialist discourse that a large number of leftist governments and parties in the region have used in the past to oppose Washington’s influence in their own countries,” Pina said.

“That said, in practical, real-world terms, Trump’s announcement will likely lead the Venezuelan government to increase its mechanisms of internal surveillance and repression – which, if left unchecked, could result in possible human rights violations.”

What is the CIA’s history in Latin America?

It is dirty, and while, at the moment, it is unclear what the US’s external espionage organisation plans for Venezuela, history offers clues to the nature of its operations in Central and South America and the Caribbean.

From the late 1800s through the early decades of the 20th century, the US carried out a series of military interventions in Central America — the so-called Banana Wars — to protect the interests of US corporates with interests in the region.

In 1934, under President Franklin D Roosevelt, the US adopted what was known as the “Good Neighbor Policy”, which in effect meant a commitment to not invade or occupy Latin American nations and to not interfere in their domestic affairs.

But the US did not remain a “good neighbour” for long.

Through the Cold War, in particular, the US funded several operations to unseat elected left-wing leaders in Latin American countries.

Here are some instances:

1950s in Guatemala

In 1954, elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was toppled by local fighter groups backed by the CIA under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.

Arbenz had sought to nationalise a company, stoking fears within the US of more socialist policies in the country.

Under the CIA’s Operation PBSuccess, the agency trained fighters led by military officer Carlos Castillo Armas, who took power after the coup. A civil war raged in Guatemala from 1960 to 1996 between the Guatemalan government and military on the one hand, and leftist rebel groups on the other.

1960s in Cuba

In 1959, Cuban communist leader Fidel Castro came to power after overthrowing dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Under Eisenhower, the CIA devised a plan to train Cuban exiles to invade the country and overthrow Castro. Democratic President John F Kennedy, who won the 1960 election, was briefed about the plan during his inauguration.

Castro found out about the training camps through Cuban intelligence. In 1961, Kennedy signed off on the Bay of Pigs Invasion, a plan for the Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro. However, the invasion failed when the Cuban military overwhelmed them.

1960s in Brazil

In 1961, Joao Goulart came into office as president, with a mandate to pursue social and economic reforms. He maintained good relations with socialist countries such as Cuba and nationalised a subsidiary of the US-owned International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT).

In response, the CIA funded pro-US politicians and supported anti-communist groups. This undermined Goulart’s leadership, culminating in a military coup in 1964, which established a US-friendly dictatorship.

1960s in Ecuador

Ecuador had long been a basket case of political instability, with 27 presidents between 1925 and 1947. That, however, changed in the 1950s when the country witnessed a rare period of stability.

It was not to last. By the early 1960s, the US was worried about the pro-Cuba policies of President Jose Velasco Ibarra and his Vice President Carlos Julio Arosemena, who in fact advocated even closer relations with Soviet bloc nations.

The CIA, using US labour organisations as its conduits, financed the spread of anti-communist sentiment in the country.

“In the end, they [the CIA] owned almost everybody who was anybody [in Ecuador],” a CIA agent told analyst Roger Morris later, in a 2004 CIA-approved appraisal of the agency’s activities in Latin America.

Arosemena first staged a coup against Ibarra, and initially turned further to the left, before trying to moderate his positions. Then, in 1963, the military staged a coup against him, banning the communist party and severing ties with Cuba, aligning with US interests.

1960s and 70s in Bolivia

Between 1963 and 1964, the US used covert funding, largely through the CIA, to influence Bolivia’s politics.

The funding backed leaders that were friendly to the US, and supported a military coup in November 1964 led by General Rene Barrientos Ortuno against elected President Victor Paz Estenssoro. The coup was successful and forced Paz Estenssoro into exile.

But the US was not done with interfering in Bolivia.

By the early 1970s, Washington had eyes set on another regime change. This time, the target was President Juan Jose Torres, who had come to power in 1970 and had nationalised multiple US companies in the country.

According to the US State Department’s official history, the US ambassador in La Paz, in June 1971, told Washington that it needed to support Torres’s opponents. The White House secretly sought, and received $410,000 in what critics within the administration described as “coup money” to finance military leaders and political leaders opposed to Torres.

Two months later, senior military officer Hugo Banzer led a successful coup against Torres. The US continued to fund Banzer’s government, which ruled until 1978. Nearly two decades later, Banzer would return to power once again, after actually winning an election in 1997.

1970s in Chile

The CIA provided funding to help end the presidency of Salvador Allende, an elected leftist leader. Allende had planned to nationalise Chilean copper companies, many of which were owned by US interests.

The CIA funding was used to back Allende’s opponent and spread anti-communist sentiment. This spiralled into the 1973 military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Allende shot himself dead using an AK-47 rifle before he was captured: Doubts about the cause of his death lingered for decades before it was confirmed by an independent autopsy years later.

The brutal US-backed dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet lasted 17 years.

1970s: Operation Condor

In 1975, the CIA supported right-wing military dictatorships in six Latin American countries in setting up a transnational network of terror called Operation Condor. This began during the presidency of Gerald Ford.

These countries included Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. The operation was aimed at crushing political dissidents, leftists and communist sympathisers. The dictatorships used a shared database to monitor dissidents and their families across state borders.

They used tactics such as exchanging intelligence, information, prisoners and torture techniques. Under the operation, at least 97 people were assassinated, according to Plan Condor, a joint initiative by Latin American organisations and the University of Oxford.

1980s in El Salvador

In December 1981, the Salvadoran military’s elite Atlacatl Battalion conducted a deadly massacre in the village of El Mozote, killing about 1,000 civilians, including women and children. This was during El Salvador’s civil war of 1980-92.

The battalion was trained and equipped by the US under its larger Cold War policy of suppressing leftist rebellions in Latin America. The US government greatly increased military aid to El Salvador between 1980 and 1982.

1980s in Grenada

It was a familiar story by now. Maurice Bishop, the prime minister of the tiny Caribbean island, had adopted Marxist-Leninist policies after seizing power himself in 1979 when the previous premier, Eric Gairy, was out of the country.

By the early 1980s, the US was worried about Cuban influence in the country. As bloody infighting broke out within Bishop’s party over a leadership struggle in October 1983, the US swooped in, invading the country, capturing Cubans in Grenada and ensuring that the country’s future was aligned with US priorities.

1980s in Panama

The US invaded Panama in 1989 during the presidency of Republican George HW Bush. The invasion was called Operation Just Cause.

The US underplayed the death toll and justified the invasion, saying it was carried out to remove President Manuel Noriega for alleged drug trafficking.

What are the possible risks or consequences for Venezuela and the region?

Pina, the Venezuelan analyst, told Al Jazeera that most other Latin American countries have so far been cautious in their response to Trump’s order and threat.

Pina said there are a few exceptions to this, such as Gustavo Petro’s Colombia, and those in the regional ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) bloc: Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Honduras and some Caribbean islands.

He said that while an escalation like this would normally cause serious friction between Latin American governments and the US, many Latin American countries have erred on the side of caution after Maduro returned to power through a controversial presidential election in July 2024.

“The current situation is due to the fact that Maduro ‘burned’ many diplomatic bridges after the presidential elections of July 28, 2024.”

The election in Venezuela resulted in widespread allegations of fraud from within and outside the country. The US, which has not had a diplomatic relationship with Venezuela since 2019, and its allies did not accept the election result. In July 2024, the Carter Center and a UN panel said they could not confirm the credibility of Venezuela’s election results, stating the vote lacked international standards for fairness and democracy. Nine Latin American countries also called for the results to be reviewed by independent observers.

Pina said that for the region, the most likely response is that some countries might try to act as mediators and encourage talks between Venezuela and the US to find a peaceful solution. However, at the moment, that seems unlikely, with both sides seeming “far” from reaching an agreement.

He added that, for now, he expects the US to continue to put pressure on Maduro to step down peacefully, while increasing its military and naval presence – but that Maduro is likely to resist these demands.

A full-fledged war will also have consequences for all of Latin America. Already, because of US sanctions on Venezuela and the economic crisis that has gripped the oil-rich nation for years, more than 8 million people have migrated from the country since 2014, mostly to other nations in the region.