Trump says he’ll have ‘honor’ of taking Cuba as country struggles with energy crisis
.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a lunch with the Trump Kennedy Center Board Members in the East Room of the White House on March 16, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said on Monday during a signing event in the Oval Office that he thinks he’ll have the “honor” of taking Cuba.
“It’s a failed nation,” Trump said. “They have no money, they have no oil, they have no nothing. They have nice land. They have nice landscape. You know, it’s a beautiful island.”
“All my life I’ve been hearing about the United States and Cuba,” Trump continued. “You know, when will the United States do it? I do believe I’ll [have the] honor of taking Cuba. That’d be good. That’s a big honor.”
The president’s comments came as Cuba was struggling with an energy crisis and a near-total blackout, according to local officials. The Cuban Ministry of Energy and Mines said Monday there was a “total disconnection” of the National Electroenergetic System, which is known as SEN. Cubans are facing limited water supplies, a loss of basic services in hospitals as well as access to medicine, sanitation and food, according to reports.
The United States this year put in place a blockade, cutting off Havana’s access to foreign oil shipments, including those from Venezuela.
The Cuban ministry said on Tuesday that it was working to restore the system after earlier saying the “causes are being investigated and protocols for restoration are beginning to be activated.”
When pressed during the Oval Office event about what “taking” the country could mean, Trump responded: “I think I can do anything I want with it.”
Trump announced additional tariffs in January on countries that provide oil to Cuba. He acknowledged while speaking to Politico that the United States’ intervention in Venezuela has contributed to Cuba’s struggle.
“Well, it’s because of my intervention, intervention that is happening,” Trump told Politico. “Obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t have this problem. We cut off all oil, all money … everything coming in from Venezuela, which was the sole source.”
Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday that he believes Cuba will soon “make a deal” with the U.S.
“I am holding Cuba — Cuba is a failed nation — Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon either make a deal or do whatever we have to do,” Trump said on Sunday. “The president added that he thinks “something will happen with Cuba pretty quickly,” but that “we’re going to do Iran before Cuba.”
Trump has previously floated a “friendly takeover” of Cuba but hasn’t yet provided any specifics on what a possible “takeover” could look like.
In a rare move on Friday, Cuba’s president publicly acknowledged that his government was holding secretive talks with the U.S. as Trump intensifies his pressure campaign against the regime.
“Cuban officials have recently held talks with representatives of the United States government,” President Miquel Díaz-Canel said during a televised address on Friday.
“We want to avoid manipulation and speculation,” Díaz-Canel later added, explaining that the talks were still “in their first phase” and that negotiators from both countries were working “to establish an agenda.”
“As the president stated, we are talking to Cuba, whose leaders should make a deal, which he believes ‘would be very easily made,'” a Trump administration official told ABC News when asked about the Cuban leader’s statements.
“Cuba is a failing nation whose rulers have had a major setback with the loss of support from Venezuela and with Mexico ceasing to send them oil,” the official continued.
Little is known about the contours of any potential deal, but both the president and seasoned diplomats who have worked closely with Cuba for years have signaled they expect to see the regime collapse.
President Donald Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (C) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine look on. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday called a proposal to end the war with Iran a “significant step” but “not good enough” to persuade him to end his military campaign.
“They are negotiating now, and they have made a very significant step,” Trump said to reporters as he attended the annual White House Easter Egg Roll. “We’ll see what happens.”
It was not immediately clear which proposal Trump was referring to. The president had touted ongoing negotiations with more “moderate” parties but tensions ramped up over the weekend after the downing of a U.S. fighter plane.
According to a U.S. official and another person close to the ongoing talks, mediators are attempting broker a 45-day ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran ahead of Trump’s latest deadline, which calls for Iran to fully open the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday or face attacks on bridges and energy infrastructure.
Iran signaled it would not accept the mediators’ proposal on Monday, responding instead with its own 10-point plan, which a U.S. official described as maximalist.
In the past, Iran has said it wants a permanent commitment from the U.S. to end the attacks rather than a shorter-term ceasefire.
Trump has moved the deadline several times citing progress in ongoing negotiations only to renew the threat of military destruction once again.
Both sources downplayed expectations that a deal could be reached in time, saying that so far Iran has refused to cede what it views as its main leverage in the negotiations: control over the Strait of Hormuz and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
“We are obliterating their country. And I hate to do it, but we’re obliterating and they just don’t want to say ‘uncle.’ They don’t want to cry, as the expression goes, ‘uncle.’ But they will,” Trump said. “And if they don’t, they’ll have no bridges, they’ll have no power plants, they’ll have no anything.”
But the president also seemed to acknowledge that the conflict was unpopular domestically.
“Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home,” he said.
Earlier on Monday, a White House official said the proposal was just “one of many ideas” and indicated that the president had not signed off on it.
Mediators are floating confidence-building measures aimed at bringing both sides closer to an agreement, sources say, and stressing to the Iranian regime that even though Trump has previously moved back deadlines he has set, Tehran would likely need to signal a willingness to make major concessions in order to buy more time for negotiations to play out.
In their public messaging, Iranian leaders have signaled little room for compromise, issuing demands the U.S. views as maximalist.
Mediators have floated the idea that perhaps access to the Strait of Hormuz and the elimination of Iran’s uranium stockpile could be fully resolved after a ceasefire is reached. However, a U.S. official said it appeared highly unlikely the Trump administration could be convinced to accept those terms–particularly on the Strait of Hormuz.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge President Donald Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said.
“No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the public Integrity section. You acted based solely on the facts. The opposite of Donald Trump, who now is purporting to take over,” Raskin said.
Trump’s Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi delivers remarks on an arrest connected to the 2012 U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi, at the Department of Justice on February 6, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Lawmakers grilled a combative Attorney General Pam Bondi as she testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday amid multiple controversies, including her handling of the files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the Justice Department’s targeting of President Donald Trump’s political foes.
In a fiery exchange at the beginning of the hearing, Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal pushed Bondi to turn around and apologize to a group of Epstein survivors who attended the hearing.
Bondi, who didn’t turn around, told Jayapal she wouldn’t “get in the gutter for her theatrics.”
In her opening statement, Bondi expressed support for the victims.
“I have spent my entire career fighting for victims, and I will continue to do so. I am deeply sorry for what any victim — any victim — has been through, especially as a result of that monster,” Bondi said to the Epstein survivors.
Bondi said several Democrats were engaging in “theatrics” throughout the hearing, and when Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the committee, pushed her to answer questions instead of engaging in heated interactions, Bondi called Raskin a “washed up loser lawyer.”
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been sharply critical of the Justice Department’s incomplete release of the Epstein files and extensive DOJ redactions after some viewed unredacted files at the agency beginning Monday.
Raskin, said he was outraged by Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files.
“You redacted the names of abusers, enablers, accomplices and co-conspirators, apparently to spare them embarrassment and disgrace, which is the exact opposite of what the law ordered you to do. Even worse, you shockingly failed to redact many of the victims’ names, which is what you were ordered to do by Congress,” he said.
“Some of the victims had come forward publicly, but many had not. Many had kept their torment private, even from family and friends. But you published their names, their identity, their images on thousands of pages for the world to see. So you ignored the law,” he added.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department — in response to concerns raised by victims’ and their lawyers — removed from its website “several thousand” documents and media that may have “inadvertently included victim-identifying information.”
Tensions were high as a group of Epstein survivors were seated behind Bondi. The group spoke out about the federal investigation into the convicted sex offender earlier Wednesday and have been critical of the federal government for not doing enough to prosecute Epstein over the years or look into the people who allegedly enabled him.
Several victims and their families said they feel the federal government has not done enough outreach to them.
“Pam, I have a clear and simple message for you. The way this administration and you specifically have handled survivors has been nothing short of a failure,” Sky Roberts, the brother of Virginia Giuffre, Epstein’s most high-profile accuser said prior to the hearing.
Sky Roberts’ wife, Amanda Roberts, said Bondi’s treatment of the Epstein survivors has been disappointing.
“To Ms. Bondi, we are deeply disappointed by the way you and your leadership in this department have treated survivors. And today, while you’re being questioned, we ask you to look in the eyes of every single one of us and remember Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the trauma that she had endured,“ Amanda Roberts said.
Raskin also blasted Bondi in his opening statement, calling her handling of investigations a “vendetta factory.”
“You’ve turned the people’s Department of Justice into Trump’s instrument of revenge,” Raskin said. “Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time.”
In her opening statement, Bondi highlighted the cooperation between Democratic mayors to drive down crime in Memphis and Washington, D.C.
In the same opening statement, Bondi said that the clashes between federal agents have been avoidable and were so due to the “reckless rhetoric” by certain politicians.
Bondi also went after judges who rule against the administration, and called it “judicial activism.”
“We fought through a nonstop flood of bad faith, temporary restraining orders from liberal activist judges across this country. America has never seen this level of coordinated judicial opposition towards a presidential administration. It is not only an unlawful attack on the executive branches authority, but a serious attack on the democratic process,” she said.
She will likely be grilled about her efforts to revive cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Attorney General Letitia James after indictments against them were tossed.
Bondi is also expected to be questioned about the raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — something administration officials have said was a law enforcement operation.
Given that, questions have been raised about why the attorney general was not present to discuss the matter at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago news conference announcing the raid.
The attorney general has testified on Capitol Hill only a handful of times.
In her most recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she appeared to use prepared lines of attack against Democratic lawmakers who demanded she answer their tough questions.
