The other ‘insane’ thing about Trump and Venezuela | Will Bunch Newsletter

The Eagles are who we thought they were. A team that consistently disappointed its fans despite winning the NFC East in defense of its Super Bowl crown put in a disappointing one-and-done playoff performance under a clueless offensive coordinator, with a banged-up O-line and some stars (cough, cough...A.J. Brown) perhaps past their peak. But this is what Philly fandom is all about: one battle after another.

If someone forwarded you this email, sign up for free here.

You could say that crude oil is in John Beard Jr.’s blood. His dad worked for more than 44 years at a giant Gulf Oil refinery in the heady 20th-century days of the South Texas energy boom, and Beard then followed his father’s footsteps by working 38 years at a rival Exxon facility in Beaumont, before heading home to sleep in the shadow of Port Arthur’s own dense row of dozens of refineries.

But today, Beard — a longtime civic activist and political leader in Port Arthur’s large Black community — is fighting to keep oil out of his neighbors’ blood, literally.

“It was nothing to wake up the next morning and find a yellow stain against the side of your house with something had been released in the air,” Beard told me last week on the phone as he talked about growing up surrounded by tall refinery stacks. “You may have smelled it, or you may have slept through it and all and come to find out that it stained your house or whatever.”

Although the Gulf Coast city of 55,000 was dubbed Texas’ “cancer belt” decades ago, it wasn’t until 2010 — when Beard heard about a report that Port Arthur residents are 40% more likely to develop cancer than similar towns just 25 miles upwind — that Beard became a tireless environmental activist.

“You know how you say when the refinery has a sneeze, we get pneumonia?” he asked. “But no, we don’t get pneumonia. We get cancer.” The most-feared disease has touched pretty much every family that Beard knows in the economically struggling town.

This was all before last week’s lightning bolt of news: that the U.S. military had bombed Venezuela and seized its indicted strongman leader Nicolás Maduro. It was quickly followed by Donald Trump announcing a scheme to bring some 30-to-50-million barrels of oil to the United States — meaning the backyards of Beard and his neighbors.

Indeed, experts have tagged Valero’s big refinery in Port Arthur that towers over Beard’s home — heavily invested in specialized equipment to process the sour, heavy crude that comes from Venezuela — as most likely to benefit from Trump’s proposed gambit.

Environmentalists say any new refinery jobs and U.S. corporate profits will be swamped by increased pollution of both the toxic chemicals that have already sickened Port Arthur, and greenhouse gases that threaten us all through climate change.

When America woke up 10 days ago to news that Trump had ordered the dead-of-night assault on Venezuela and seized Maduro, there was one word that echoed among Democratic lawmakers asked for a comment. “Is anyone going to just stop for a second and be honest?” U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts told CNN. “This is insane. What the hell are we doing?”

But the first wave of critics like Moulton focused mainly on the rank illegality of Trump’s maneuver — failing to get congressional approval or even consult its leaders, over an act of unlawful aggression that killed as many as 100 people on the ground, and which seemed to lack any planning for how to deal with the aftermath of taking Maduro.

Those problems have been amplified in the days since Moulton and others branded the operation as “insane.” It is indeed insane when Trump declares to the world that the United States is “in charge” of Venezuela and a few days later his State Department says the country is unsafe for Americans because of violent roving gangs. For that matter, it’s also meshugana to upend the global order that has reigned since the end of World War II, when the U.S. led efforts to ban wars of aggression.

But we’re not talking nearly enough about what’s maybe most whacked-out about Trump’s splendid little war in Latin America — that by making his operation all about taking the oil, he seeks to endanger the entire planet by accelerating climate change. One expert told the Associated Press that increasing production of Venezuela’s thick, dirty crude by a target of 1 million barrels a day would also add roughly 360 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year from the production process — a significant spike in the gases that are warming our planet.

That Trump made it clear that his goal in making war against Venezuela was all about grabbing its oil on the one-year anniversary of the deadly Los Angeles wildfires — perhaps the most dramatic of the floods, amped-up hurricanes, and other weather catastrophes exacerbated by a hotter planet — was especially disgusting.

Michael E. Mann, director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, told me that while Trump’s initial target for Venezuelan oil seems modest, experts believe the South American nation could harbor a whopping 300 billion barrels under ground. He has written that Trump aims to make America a “petrostate,” allied with other bad actors such as Russia and Saudi Arabia in working to undermine any global consensus around fighting climate change.

Less than a week after the Venezuela strike, the New York Times reported that Trump’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is dropping its longtime requirement to weigh the cost on human lives — early deaths, or chronic diseases like asthma — in regulating key air pollutants, including those from oil refineries. As a matter of policy, the U.S. government now values the dollars that Valero or Exxon can make from burning dirty oil over the very existence of Beard and his Texas community. That’s not surprising from the crew that’s dismantled an entire generation of EPA programs that once targeted the environmental racism that dumps pollutants on disadvantaged Black and brown communities like Port Arthur.

Indeed, the 100 fatalities caused by the Trump regime’s militarism against Venezuela — although a human-rights outrage — will likely pale over time against the canopy of death and destruction that historians will blame on the president’s obsession with doubling down on fossil fuels while other nations focus on green energy such as wind or solar.

A preview of the world’s coming attractions is arguably taking place right now on the blood-soaked streets of Tehran, where experts believe months of severe drought that sometimes left poorer neighborhoods in the Iranian capital with little or no running water has been a key trigger for the collapse of social order.

While foreign policy experts aren’t wrong to worry about U.S. expansionism triggering World War III, Trump’s backward-looking energy policies could cause a similar or worse toll through civil war and mass migration. While top energy officials — including the Exxon Mobil CEO who called Venezuela “uninvestable” — say Trump’s Venezuela dreams are economically unrealistic, the time lost for America to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution is a clear and present danger for civilization.

History is almost sure to judge that “insane” was far too generous a word to describe it.

Question: Please explain how the “anti-elite” [MAGA] base can continue to support all the elite personnel in charge of America’s economy in this regime? Just ONE recent example: [Pennsylvania Sen. Dave] McCormick’s wife’s Facebook promotion in charge of....“sovereign relations concerning AI...“. — @tim215.bsky.social via Bluesky

Answer: Tim, I think the ascension of Dina Powell McCormick — the former Trump 45 aide who is also married to Pennsylvania’s Republican junior senator — to the job of president of Facebook’s parent company Meta has profoundly troubling implications. This is neither to say that Mark Zuckerberg’s new hire lacks qualifications, nor that Senate spouses should be barred from the private sector. But the move surely reflects Silicon Valley’s determination to curry favor with the personalist Trump regime by any means necessary. What bothers me even more, as a Pa. voter, is that I see the issues surrounding Meta — especially the currently unchecked rise of artificial intelligence, or AI — as requiring clear-eyed leadership. How can anyone now expect Sen. McCormick to be an honest broker?

Last week’s question about the attack on Venezuela drew a robust response, as I expected, and — also as I expected — almost unanimous opposition to Trump’s policy for the troubled country. Most of you saw the military operation as illegal and unconstitutional, and share my befuddlement (see above) on the president’s assertion that taking Venezuela’s oil was the prime reason, except for Jon Elliott, who wrote: “I absolutely endorse Trump’s Pirates of the Caribbean excursion with one proviso — he performs Maduro redux in North Korea." More typical was Tom Lees: “I was born in June 1945, two months before the dropping of the atomic bombs. The world order that has prevented WWIII seems to be in the process of being dismantled by people who should be imprisoned (Donald Trump) or institutionalized (Stephen Miller).”

📮 This week’s question: Given the uproar over the killing of Renee Good, is “Abolish ICE” now the mainstream position, and do you support it? If so, how should the U.S. enforce its immigration laws? Please email me your answer and put the exact phrase “Abolish ICE” in the subject line.

One of the most anticipated stories of 2026 isn’t supposed to happen until the waning weeks of the year, when the votes from the midterm election have been counted and top Democrats beginning lining up for their shot at following Donald Trump as the 48th president. But the most consequential early moment in that Dem primary race may have already happened. On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom faced a career-defining choice between the growing populism of his party’s anxious voters, or the Silicon Valley moguls who’ve been there for him in the past.

Newsom chose the billionaires.

At issue is a citizen initiative to place a wealth tax on California’s richest of the rich — those with a net worth of more than $1 billion — to pay a one-time levy equal to 5% of their assets, with most of the revenue targeted toward keeping troubled hospitals open and other healthcare costs. Backed by a powerful labor union, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the ballot measure reflects growing global rage over economic inequality and the current zeitgeist among Democrats likely to vote in the 2028 primaries. Not surprisingly, the push has angered Silicon Valley’s increasingly right-wing tech titans and investors like Peter Thiel or Google co-founder Larry Page who’ve threatened to move to red states like Florida or Texas.

Newsom, who is term-limited and leaves the governor’s mansion at year’s end, has long walked a tightrope between boosting his White House ambitions by relentlessly needling Donald Trump on social media while — with considerably less fanfare — catering to the high-tech poobahs who’ve funded his campaigns and who, Newsom insists, would damage the Golden State economy by leaving. On Monday, the governor told the New York Times that he firmly opposes the proposed wealth tax and will use his bully pulpit to fight the measure if it reaches the ballot.

“Hey idiots: You’re rich,” the independent journalist Hamilton Nolan wrote in a riposte to Thiel and Co. posted hours before Newsom’s decision. “Enjoy your lives. Pay your taxes and count your blessings. Is this the perfect life that you dreamed of for yourself — performatively kissing the ass of a dictator, giving up your home to flee the taxman, earning the enmity of your fellow man, all in service of money you will never spend?"

Nolan’s piece may have targeted the 0.1%, but it also seemed to carry a message that Newsom and any other Democratic presidential hopefuls need to hear. Running as a performative kind of center-left Trump with viral social media posts will get you attention but not the White House. The core of rank-and-file Democrats — especially the 7 million who took to the streets last summer for the No Kings protest — wants radical changes they’re not seeing in Newsom’s California. These include limits on artificial intelligence, a major overhaul of the Supreme Court, and — especially — an end to the gross unfairness of economic inequality. Hopefully Newsom’s pals in Silicon Valley can find him new work, because 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. already looks above his future pay grade.

One of the many similarities between today and the United States seven years ago is that Democrats and other progressives were already deeply divided over how best to respond to Donald Trump and threats against democracy. On this date in 2019, I put forth my own idea that I’m not sure I’d endorse in hindsight: that Bernie Sanders was the most inspiring figure in U.S. politics, yet should stand down from the 2020 election. I wrote about “a sense that white dudes from the baby-boomer-and-older generation have been running things for far too long, and that America needs some new blood.” Instead, we got the two oldest presidents in American history. Read the rest: “Bernie Sanders is the leader America needs now. Just NOT by running for president in 2020.”

By submitting your written, visual, and/or audio contributions, you agree to The Inquirer‘s Terms of Use, including the grant of rights in Section 10.