Trump rescinds Canada’s invite to join his Board of Peace amid feud with Carney
Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, after speaking in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. (Renaud Philippe/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump rescinded an invitation for Canada to join his newly-formed “Board of Peace” amid his escalating feud with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
The move, which Trump announced late Thursday in a social media post, came after Carney’s headline-making speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in which he warned the rules-based international order largely steered by American hegemony was in the midst of a “rupture.”
“Please let this Letter serve to represent that the Board of Peace is withdrawing its invitation to you regarding Canada’s joining, what will be, the most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time,” Trump posted online as he returned to Washington from Switzerland.
Trump hosted a signing ceremony for his Board of Peace on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum earlier this week. More than two dozen countries have signed on so far, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, though notably none of the U.S.’s major European allies have done so. France, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom have either declined the invitation or expressed significant reservations about the board. The Vatican said Pope Leo, the first American pope, has been asked to join the board and is evaluating the invitation.
Carney, in his address to the gathering of government officials and business leaders, called on middle powers to come together to avoid falling victim to coercion from larger and more powerful nations.
“Middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” Carney said.
Carney added, “We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together.”
The Canadian leader, without explicitly mentioning Trump by name, also directly criticized the U.S. threat of tariffs for U.S. allies that opposed Trump’s aim to acquire Greenland and made clear Canada’s support for the Danish territory’s sovereignty.
President Trump, the next day, swiped at Carney’s remarks and said the U.S.’s northern neighbor should be “grateful.”
“Canada gets a lot of freebies from us. By the way, they should be grateful also, but they’re not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful. They should be grateful to us, Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements,” Trump said in his WEF speech.
Carney pushed back on Trump in remarks delivered in Quebec City on Thursday.
“Canada and the United States have built a remarkable partnership in the economy, in security, and in rich cultural exchange,” Carney said. “But Canada doesn’t live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian.”
Tensions have flared between Trump and Carney for months over tariffs and over Trump’s repeated calls since his return to office to have Canada become the 51st state of the U.S.
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the media as he leaves the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Top congressional leaders — comprising the “Gang of 8” — did not receive a briefing from the administration before the U.S. strike in Venezuela began, multiple sources told ABC News Saturday morning.
Per one source, the Department of Defense notified congressional staff after the operation started.
Weeks ago, President Donald Trump indicated he wouldn’t brief lawmakers in advance of any land operations in Venezuela because he was worried they would “leak.”
Early congressional reaction largely split along party lines.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked the phones Saturday morning to shore up support among Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Notably, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee initially seemed critical of the action being taken without authorization by Congress.
“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee posted on X.
But later, Lee followed up his post saying he had spoken by phone with Rubio about and was now comfortable with the administration’s authority to take action.
“Just got off the phone with @SecRubio He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack Thank you, @SecRubio, for keeping me apprised,” Lee wrote.
He also said that Rubio told him he anticipates “no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in U.S. custody.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, echoed Lee’s comments after saying he, too, had spoken with Rubio.
“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation. That’s why he was indicted in U.S. court nearly six years ago for drug trafficking and narco-terrorism,” Cotton posted on X. “I just spoke to @SecRubio, who confirmed that Maduro is in U.S. custody and will face justice for his crimes against our citizens. I commend President Trump and our brave troops and law-enforcement officers for this incredible operation.”
Later, speaking to Fox News, Cotton said, “Congress doesn’t need to be notified ever time the executive branch is making an arrest. And that’s exactly what happened this morning in Venezuela, and now Maduro is going to come to the United States, and he’s going to face justice.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement he has spoken to Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in “the last several hours” — calling the military action in Venezuela “decisive” and a “justified operation that will protect American lives.”
Johnson said the Trump administration is working to schedule briefings next week when Congress returns to Washington after the holiday break.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said in a statement that he had spoken with Rubio as well and argued Trump’s actions were undertaken as part of “the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant.”
“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, countered that Rubio had denied regime change was the administration’s goal.
“Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, but I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos,” he said in a statement. “Secretary Rubio repeatedly denied to Congress that the Administration intended to force regime change in Venezuela. The Administration must immediately brief Congress on its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”
In a statement Saturday morning, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of the Senate’s most vocal advocates for congressional war authorizations, issued a scathing statement on Trump’s actions in Venezuela and called for Congress to take up his resolution that would block the use of the U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
“Where will this go next? Will the President deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza To battle terrorists in Nigeria To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies?” Kaine said.
“Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk,” he said.
Kaine, along with California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and co-sponsor GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, introduced a war powers resolution last month to block the use of the U.S. military to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
That legislation is ready to be called up for a vote. The Senate returns to Washington next week on Monday, while the House returns on Tuesday.
Last month, Republicans defeated two Democratic war powers resolutions that attempted to reign in the president’s military actions in the Caribbean and East Pacific.
The first measure, H. Con. Res. 61, would direct the president to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.
That resolution was authored by the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks. A vote failed on Dec. 17 by a count of 210-216, with two Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats opposed to the measure.
“This action is also a violation of international law and further undermines America’s global standing,” Meeks, D-N.Y., stated Saturday following the operation. “Congress must reassert its constitutional role before this escalation leads to greater instability, chaos, and unnecessary risk to American lives.”
A separate war powers resolution, H. Con. Res. 64 — championed by Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern and written to address hostilities with Venezuela, narrowly failed by a vote of 211-213, with three Republicans voting in favor — at odds with the rest of the House Republican Conference. One moderate Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted to defeat the measure alongside Republicans.
On Saturday, McGovern argued the strikes are illegal.
“Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” he posted on X.
While congressional Republicans overwhelmingly expressed support for the Trump administration’s operation to capture Maduro, at least three House Republicans put out critical statements of the action.
GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted on X: “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska posted on X, in part, “My main concern is now Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan. Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted, in part, “If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels?”
She added, “And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America Ironically cocaine is the same drug that Venezuela primarily traffics into the U.S.
Greene continued, “Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going. This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
US President Donald Trump departs the North Portico of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a historic first for a sitting president, as the justices consider his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
“I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.
No cameras are allowed inside the courtroom. Trump’s motorcade arrived outside the building on Wednesday morning shortly before arguments began. His motorcade later departed the court after Solicitor General John Sauer’s presentation on behalf of the government.
Trump previously floated attending arguments last year when the court took up his global tariff policy, but ultimately he did not attend.
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Supreme Court in the wake of the ruling invalidating most of his tariffs, including two justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
“I love a few of them, I don’t like some others,” Trump said on Tuesday when asked which justices he would be listening for most closely.
Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
Lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order.
American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued on behalf of the class of plaintiffs. Wang herself is a birthright citizen, born in Oregon to Taiwanese parents.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance, saying he will “watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship.”
“Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them,” he said.
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill, on March 26, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A special panel of the bipartisan House Ethics Committee determined on Friday that Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick was guilty of 25 ethics violations, including commingling of campaign and personal funds.
The determination came after the panel held a rare public hearing on Thursday to consider whether Cherfilus-McCormick violated House rules amid sweeping allegations of fraud against her — and a four-count federal indictment.
The panel said in a statement that deliberations in the case “lasted until well past midnight” and that they found “clear and convincing evidence” that the congresswoman was guilty of all but two of the 27 counts.
“We had a good, robust discussion on all counts, voted on all counts, and we were able to find agreement on 25 of the 27 counts,” Ethics Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., told ABC News on Friday morning.
The ethics violations include acceptance of improper campaign contributions, false statements, commingling of campaign and personal funds and reporting errors on financial disclosures.
The full House Ethics Committee will hold a hearing after the April congressional recess to “determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend.” The sanction recommendations could include censure or expulsion, which would require a two-thirds majority vote.
“There will be a sanctions hearing,” Guest said. “That date has not been set, but there will be a sanctions hearing sometime, we hope shortly after we return back from the Easter recess.”
Separately, Cherfilus-McCormick was indicted in November by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her 2021 congressional campaign.
The indictment alleges Cherfilus-McCormick, 46, and her brother Edwin Cherfilus, 51, received a $5 million overpayment in FEMA funds directed to their family health care company in connection with a contract for COVID-19 vaccination staffing in 2021.
Cherfilus-McCormick has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to the federal criminal charges against her.
During Thursday’s hourslong hearing, lawmakers on the panel questioned Cherfilus-McCormick’s counsel and the committee’s investigative staff about the allegations against the congresswoman.
Cherfilus-McCormick did not address the committee throughout the proceedings, but she took notes and occasionally talked to her attorney.
Her attorney, William Barzee, demanded that his client receive a full hearing — allowing him to call in witnesses.
Guest pushed back on this request, saying Cherfilus-McCormick has refused to cooperate with the panel’s ongoing investigation.
Barzee acknowledged that the congresswoman “made a lot of mistakes” on financial forms.
In a statement to ABC News ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the congresswoman said: “I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and challenge these inaccuracies, when I am legally able to do so. Make no mistake: I am innocent and I am a fighter. My district is made up of fighters. I will continue to fight for the people I was elected to serve.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that while he believes in “due process,” the congresswoman “has egregiously violated the law.”
“This is a very serious matter. I think even many Democrats, even members of her own party, have publicly said that the evidence is so stark … but we have to process this internally and see how this goes,” Johnson said Thursday.
The adjudicatory subcommittee that held the hearing is made up of an equal number of three Republicans and three Democrats will hear Cherfilus-McCormick’s case Thursday.
In addition to Guest, the chairman, the subcommittee is made up Democratic Rep. Mark DeSaulnier as ranking member. Democratic Reps. Sylvia Garcia, Glenn Ivey and Suhas Subramanyam and Republican Reps. Ashley Hinson, Brad Knott and Nathaniel Moran also serve on the subcommittee.
“I am deeply disappointed the Committee chose to move forward with this trial while denying my legal team reasonable time to prepare. That raises serious concerns about due process and the fundamental rights every American is entitled to under our Constitution,” the congresswoman said in a statement to ABC News.
Speaker Johnson previously deferred to the members of the House to determine whether the congresswoman should be expelled from the House. The last member to be expelled was former New York GOP Rep. George Santos over using campaign dollars for his personal enrichment in 2023 — only the sixth representative ever ousted.
“Expulsion, obviously, is effectively the political death penalty. There are occasions that meet that standard, but it’s a decision of the body to determine that,” Johnson said.
“You look at all the factors and you — you figure that out. We’ll be doing that here in this case,” Johnson said. “It seems that this member of Congress has egregiously violated the law and exploited taxpayers and all the rest, and that, that would be, it would be a harsh penalty necessary for that.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has promised Democrats won’t help Republicans kick her out of Congress, regardless of the ethics inquiry.
“Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick is entitled to the presumption of innocence, like every other American,” Jeffries told reporters on Feb. 2. “I’m a hard no as it relates to the effort to expel her, and it’s going to fail.”
The last public ethics trial occurred in 2010 when New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel came before the panel. Rangel was later censured over failing to report assets on his financial disclosure forms, improperly obtaining four rent-controlled apartments in New York, and failing to disclose financial arrangements for a villa in the Dominican Republic.
Rangel maintained that he never knowingly broke any laws. “I truly believe I have not been treated fairly,” Rangel told the Ethics Committee before storming out of his hearing.
ABC News’ Justin Gomez contributed to this report.
