Washingtons

Croix Bethune scored on a header in the 71st minute to pull the Washington Spirit into a 2-2 draw with Angel City on Thursday night in the National Women’s Soccer League.

The Spirit (10-4-7) remained in second place in the league standings behind the Kansas City Current with a nine-game unbeaten run.

The draw stopped a two-game losing streak for Angel City (6-9-6), which was below the playoff line but still within reach of a berth.

Trinity Rodman’s penalty attempt was stopped, but she scored on the rebound to give the Spirit the lead in the 12th minute.

Just two minutes later, rookie Evelyn Shores scored her first NWSL goal off a cross from Gisele Thompson. Thompson has five assists this season, tied for the league lead.

Angel City went ahead in the 56th on an own goal by Spirit defender Tara McKeown. Bethune pulled Washington back even with her header.

Deborah Abiodun was bloodied when she caught a cleat in the head in a collision with Angel City’s Jun Endo that caused a lengthy delay in the first half. Abiodun returned to the match with a wrap on her head.

American warships edging closer to Venezuelan waters earlier this year barely made global headlines, overshadowed by louder crises in Ukraine and the South China Sea. Yet this quiet buildup is not accidental. It is part of Washington’s long pattern of targeting regimes that stand at the crossroads of energy and geopolitics. Venezuela, sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, remains an indispensable square on the global chessboard, despite years of economic decay. The question worth asking is: Why does the United States persist in exerting pressure on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia and even spar with rising oil consumers like India? The answer lies in a combination of old-fashioned energy security, the logic of sanctions, and a twenty-first-century version of tariff wars.

Energy, Empire, and the Logic of Control

From the early Cold War to the Gulf Wars, American power has been tethered to oil. Securing access to hydrocarbons was never about mere consumption; it was about leverage. Whoever controlled the flow of oil controlled the arteries of the global economy. Venezuela, like Iran and Russia, belongs to the category of states with energy abundance but frail political legitimacy in Washington’s eyes. These states could, in theory, undermine the U.S.-led order by weaponizing supply.

The Trump administration revived this logic with unusual bluntness. Sanctions on Venezuela’s PDVSA, Iran’s National Iranian Oil Company, and Russia’s energy giants were not simply punitive. They were instruments of economic siege, aimed at reducing rivals’ fiscal lifelines while simultaneously making American shale oil more competitive on the global market. The “tariff war” with China, and by extension India, fit the same pattern: weaken alternative energy partnerships and redirect trade flows toward U.S.-friendly networks.

Venezuela: A Pawn or a Prize?

Venezuela is not merely an oil state; it is a symbolic battleground. For Washington, Nicolás Maduro’s survival is a reminder that authoritarian regimes can withstand Western pressure when shielded by Moscow and Beijing. For Russia and China, supporting Caracas is inexpensive but symbolically priceless: it frustrates U.S. hegemony in its own hemisphere.

This symbolism has recently translated into direct diplomatic gestures. When Washington deployed warships off Venezuela’s coast, Beijing condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty and publicly reaffirmed its support for President Maduro. India, in contrast, has been more circumspect: while historically engaged with Venezuelan crude, New Delhi stepped back from oil imports earlier this year under U.S. tariff threats, signaling its preference for strategic neutrality. These divergent responses underscore how Venezuela has become a stage where multipolar fault lines are performed in real time.

The irony is that Venezuela’s oil industry today is a ghost of its former self. Decades of mismanagement and sanctions have collapsed production to levels unthinkable in the 1990s. And yet, the reserves beneath Venezuelan soil still represent untapped potential insurance against a future where Middle Eastern supply chains might be disrupted. U.S. naval maneuvers around Venezuela send a dual message: to Caracas, that Washington retains coercive power; to global markets, that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere is not up for negotiation.

Tariffs, Sanctions, and the Shifting Global Economy

Sanctions and tariffs are often portrayed as separate instruments, but in practice they converge. By sanctioning Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, Washington narrows the playing field for global oil suppliers. By imposing tariffs on India and China, it simultaneously curbs the bargaining power of large consumers. The effect is to reinforce the role of the United States as both an energy producer (through shale) and a gatekeeper of energy commerce (through financial sanctions and naval dominance).

This strategy, however, comes with risks. Sanctions have accelerated experiments in de-dollarization, as Russia and China expand oil trade in rubles and yuan. India, caught between cheap Russian crude and American pressure, finds itself hedging. Venezuela, despite its pariah status, has quietly courted Asian markets with barter-style deals. In short, the very pressure that once guaranteed U.S. leverage is now incubating alternatives.

History’s Echoes

To understand today’s maneuvers, one must recall history. Washington’s approach to oil-rich adversaries is not new; it is a recycled script. The 1953 coup in Iran, the sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1990s, and even the naval blockades against Cuba: each reflects a doctrine that energy and ideology cannot be separated.

Yet, history also reminds us that such strategies rarely yield clean victories. Sanctions tend to harden regimes rather than topple them. Tariffs often spark retaliation rather than capitulation. Recent analyses have underscored this dynamic: for instance, an Investopedia study notes that overuse of dollar-based sanctions has accelerated global de-dollarization, with the dollar’s share of global reserves dropping below 47%—as nations increasingly shift into gold, yuan, and local currencies. Venezuela under Maduro looks less like a state on the verge of collapse than a state perpetually enduring collapse, too weak to recover, too stubborn to die.

Theoretical Lens: Realism with a Neoliberal Mask

International relations theory offers a useful lens. Realists would argue that Washington is simply acting in line with its structural interests: preventing rival powers from weaponizing energy. But a neoliberal reading highlights how this coercion is cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and market freedom. Sanctions are framed as moral instruments, when in reality they are economic tools of statecraft. Tariffs are justified as corrections for “unfair trade,” though their deeper function is to secure strategic dominance.

The United States, in effect, performs a balancing act: dressing realist power politics in neoliberal language. Venezuela becomes not just a state to be disciplined but a case study in how the American order sustains itself through economic pressure rather than outright invasion.

Conclusion: A Risky Bet

The naval encirclement of Venezuela may not escalate into open conflict, but it signals a broader pattern: Washington is unwilling to let go of energy geopolitics as the anchor of its global primacy. By targeting Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and by sparring with India and China over tariffs, the U.S. reasserts its role as the central broker of oil and trade.

The gamble, however, is whether this strategy is sustainable in a world edging toward multipolarity. Sanctions fatigue is growing; tariff wars strain alliances; and new financial infrastructures are slowly eroding the dollar’s monopoly. History teaches us that great powers can overextend. The United States risks learning that lesson the hard way, with Venezuela serving less as a pawn to be cornered and more as a mirror reflecting the limits of American power.

WASHINGTON — Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Wednesday that his department is taking management of Union Station, the main transportation hub in Washington, away from Amtrak, in another example of how the federal government is exerting its power over the nation’s capital.

Duffy made the announcement in a statement before he joined Amtrak President Roger Harris at Union Station for the launch of the NextGen Acela, the rail service’s new high-speed train.

The secretary said Union Station, located within walking distance of the U.S. Capitol, had “fallen into disrepair” when it should be a “point of pride” for the city.

“By reclaiming station management, we will help make this city safe and beautiful at a fraction of the cost,” Duffy said.

At the event, Duffy said President Trump has been “pretty clear” about what he wants.

“He wants Union Station to be beautiful again. He wants transit to be safe again. And he wants our nation’s capital to be great again. And today is part of that,” Duffy said.

Duffy echoed the Republican president, who said last week he wants $2 billion from Congress to beautify Washington as part of his crackdown on the city. The Republican president has sent thousands of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officials into Washington in a bid to fight violent crime he claimed had strangled the city.

Local police department statistics show violent crime in Washington has declined in recent years, but Trump has countered, without offering evidence, that the numbers were fudged.

National Guard troops have been on patrol inside and outside of Union Station after Trump launched the anti-crime effort earlier this month. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were shouted down by opponents of the federal intervention when they visited with troops there last week.

During Wednesday’s train unveiling, Duffy will also talk about what the administration is doing to turn Union Station into a world class transit hub, according to a Transportation Department news advisory.

Duffy had pressed Amtrak about crime at Union Station in a March letter to its chief operating officer and requested an updated plan on how it intended to improve public safety there.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Some of the District of Columbia’s homeless residents were packing their belongings Thursday before expected sweeps to clear out remaining encampments around the nation’s capital, part of President Trump’s federal takeover of policing in the city.

Trump said this week that homeless people will be moved far from the city in his crackdown on crime. But details of the plan to do so are unclear.

Washington’s status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump the opportunity to push his tough-on-crime agenda. It’s prompted concern from advocates and others who say there are better ways to address homelessness than clearing encampments and leaving their occupants worrying about where they go.

Here’s a look at what we know and what questions remain about how Trump’s actions will affect the city’s homeless population:

What’s happening to encampments?

Near the Institute of Peace on Thursday morning, AP journalists saw about a dozen homeless D.C. residents packing their belongings. Items weren’t being forcibly thrown out by law enforcement, but an earth mover dug out and scooped away the remains of encampments, depositing them into the bed of an idling truck.

Yards away, several protesters held signs, some critical of the Trump administration. Volunteers from some of the agencies around the city that help homeless people were on hand, and advocates said they expected law enforcement officers to fan out across Washington. later Thursday to take down any remaining homeless encampments,

Amber W. Harding, executive director of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, said she believed that “federal law enforcement will begin systematically rounding up and arresting unhoused people.” She believed officers would ask people to move on or would “offer shelter,” arresting people if they refused either directive.

“We do not have enough shelter beds for everyone on the street,” Harding said. “This is a chaotic and scary time for all of us in D.C., but particularly for people without homes.”

Lucho Vásquez, executive director of the Coalition for the Homeless, said his group was “focusing all energies on opening and operating temporary facilities” for anyone in need of emergency shelter, food or other resources after the removals.

Where will the city’s homeless people be taken?

It’s not entirely clear.

Trump wrote on his social media site before Monday’s news conference announcing the takeover that homeless people will have to leave immediately. “We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” he posted.

Asked this week where homeless people would be relocated, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said local police and federal agencies would “enforce the laws that are already on the books,” which, she said, “have been completely ignored.”

Citing a city regulation that she said gives local police “the authority to take action when it comes to homeless encampments,” Leavitt said homeless people “will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services.” Those who refuse “will be susceptible to fines or to jail time.”

In the past five months, U.S. Park Police have removed 70 homeless encampments, giving the people living in them the same options, she said. As of Tuesday, Leavitt said only two homeless encampments remained in district parks maintained by the National Park Service and would be removed this week.

How many homeless people are in Washington?

It is difficult to obtain accurate counts of homeless populations.

On one day at the end of each January, municipal agencies across the United States perform a “point-in-time” count aimed at capturing the total number of people in emergency shelters, transitional housing or without any housing.

The 2025 count in the district put the total at 5,138 adults and children, a 9% decrease compared with the year before, according to Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser.

What are city officials doing for the homeless?

District officials said Tuesday they were making additional shelter space available.

Kevin Donahue, the city administrator, said outreach workers were visiting homeless encampments and the city has a building available that could house as many as 200 people, if needed.

Donahue made the comments during a conversation with community advocates and Bowser. The conversation was broadcast on X.

He said the outreach would continue through the week with a “greater level of urgency.”

Bowser said that when Trump sees homeless encampments in the city it “triggers something in him that has him believing our very beautiful city is dirty, which it is not.”

What are people in Washington saying?

Washington residents emphasized reductions in crime in recent years and concerns over the removal of homeless encampments in interviews Tuesday criticizing the federal takeover of the city’s police department.

Jeraod Tyre, who has lived in the city for 15 years, said “crime has been slowing down lately” and argued that federal troops would only escalate tensions because they do not have “relationships with the people in the community” like local police do.

Sheiena Taylor, 36, said she is more fearful as a result of the presence of federal forces in the city where she was born and raised.

Taylor said she has seen federal officers around her home and on the subway and worries about their targeting of young people and people experiencing homelessness.

“Being homeless isn’t a crime,” she said, emphasizing the need for solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime rather than policing.

In several spots across the city, AP journalists talked to homeless people who were being told either by federal law enforcement officials or advocacy groups to pack up tents and belongings from parks and other public spaces before more official removal measures. Some expressed fear and anxiety about what might be coming.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Christine Fernando in Chicago, Mike Balsamo and Darlene Superville; video journalists River Zhang and Nathan Ellgren; and photographer Jacquelyn Martin contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he will lift all sanctions on Syria, declaring that it was time for the country to “move forward”, giving a nation devastated by years of ruinous civil war a crucial opening in reviving its shattered economy.

Speaking at an investment forum in Saudi Arabia’s Riyadh during his Middle East tour on Tuesday, Trump said the punitive measures had achieved their “purpose” and were no longer needed.

“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” he said. “It’s their time to shine. We’re taking them all off”.

The president ended his remarks with a direct message to Damascus: “Good luck, Syria. Show us something very special.”

The announcement marks a dramatic shift in Washington’s yearslong policy towards Syria, where sanctions targeted ousted President Bashar al-Assad’s government during years of war, and the country at large over its crackdown on dissent and human rights abuses during that nearly 14-year period.

Syrians suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions were displaced during the war.

“There’s a new government that will hopefully succeed in stabilising the country and keeping peace,” Trump said in Riyadh, referring to the interim government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Trump noted that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani in Turkiye later this week, and says his decision to end the sanctions was influenced by conversations with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Al-Shaibani welcomed the announcement, calling it a “a pivotal turning point for the Syrian people as we move toward a future of stability, self-sufficiency, and true reconstruction after years of devastating war”, according to the state-run SANA news agency.

Key obstacle removed, but others remain

The sanctions relief will be welcomed by al-Sharaa’s government, which also says it wants to transition away from the corrupt system that gave al-Assad loyalists privileged access to government contracts and kept key industries in the hands of the al-Assad family and its Alawite base.

Omar Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, says that while it is important not to overestimate the significance of Trump’s promise to lift sanctions on Syria, it is an important step in the future of a nation devastated by years of war.

“It takes away a key obstacle in their ability to establish some kind of economic development, economic prosperity,” he told Al Jazeera. “But there are plenty of other obstacles and challenges the country is facing.”

Rahman said that Saudi Arabia helped push the US towards its decision to drop sanctions.

“I think the United States was really dragging its feet on sanctions – they wanted to use it as leverage in order to push other policies in Syria,” he said, adding that besides Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were also pushing for this pivotal outcome.

“This wasn’t something that was too difficult for Trump to do,” Rahman added. “He didn’t need to get permission from anybody. He didn’t even need consent from Congress.”

Syria’s new government has sought to rebuild the country’s diplomatic ties, including with international financial institutions. It also counts on wealthy Gulf Arab states to play a critical role in financing the reconstruction of Syria’s war-ravaged infrastructure and reviving its economy.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar announced in April that they will settle Syria’s debt to the World Bank totalling roughly $15m.

The United Kingdom has also removed its sanctions on 12 Syrian government entities, including the Ministries of Defence and Interior and the General Intelligence Directorate.

But military attacks persist.

Israel has carried out multiple air strikes in Syria since al-Assad’s removal. The country’s presidency denounced an Israeli attack near the presidential palace in Damascus as a “dangerous escalation” earlier this month.

Tensions between Israel and Syria soared after the Israeli government accused the Syrian authorities of failing to protect the country’s Druze minority.

The Syrian government and Druze came to an agreement after days of violence, the latter saying they did not need Israel’s intervention or protection.

Israel has previously called Syria’s interim government a “terror group from Idlib that took Damascus by force”.

Decades needed to recover

A February report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimated that at current growth rates, Syria would need more than 50 years to return to the economic level it had before the war, and it called for massive investment to accelerate the process.

The UNDP study said nine out of 10 Syrians now live in poverty, one-quarter are jobless and Syria’s gross domestic product (GDP) “has shrunk to less than half of its value” in 2011, the year the war began.

Syria’s Human Development Index score, which factors in life expectancy, education and standard of living, has fallen to its worst level since it was first included in the index in 1990, meaning the war erased decades of development.

The UNDP report estimated that Syria’s “lost GDP” during the 2011-2024 war to be about $800bn.

SEARCY, Ark. — Former Rep. Wilbur D. Mills, the powerful Arkansas congressman whose career was destroyed by a stripper’s plunge into Washington’s Tidal Basin, died Saturday of an apparent heart attack. He was 82.

Mills collapsed at his home in Kensett, Ark., and was taken to White County Memorial Hospital here, where efforts to revive him failed, said nursing supervisor Jackie Wooldridge.

Mills, a Democrat, wielded immense influence as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee for 16 years. Before retiring in 1976 after 38 years in the House, he wrote much of the federal tax code and helped shape the Social Security program.

His knowledge of tax legislation and knack for getting his way were renowned among Washington insiders.

During his years as chairman, the Ways and Means Committee arguably was the most powerful committee of Congress, and he was unarguably its leader. There were almost no tax, trade or government entitlement measures of the 1960s and 1970s that did not bear his mark. Measures such as tax cuts and Medicare were enacted only when he was ready.

During those years, the Democratic members of the Ways and Means panel also served as the body that assigned all their party members to the various committees of the House. This enabled the committee, and especially its chairman, to nearly make or break a House career.

The portly country lawyer-banker held sway not only because of the power he had, but also because of his unchallenged expertise. If his power was seldom challenged, it may have been because he was not an ideologue but a pragmatist who sought to make the system work.

Presidents often deferred to the Harvard-educated lawyer, who was once called “the most tightly buttoned-up man in Congress.”

The buttons popped off early on Oct. 7, 1974, when police stopped Mills’ weaving car in Washington near the Tidal Basin.

Annabel Battistella, a burlesque dancer known as Fanne Foxe, “the Argentine firecracker,” jumped from the car and ran, leaping into the Potomac River estuary near the Jefferson Memorial. An intoxicated Mills stepped from the car, his face bleeding.

At first, a Mills spokesman denied that the congressman was in the car. Later, Mills claimed Battistella was among neighbors and friends he was entertaining, that she became ill and he tried to take her home. He said there was a struggle and her elbow broke his glasses, causing facial cuts.

The truth came out, but slowly. Mills acknowledged the two had been companions and blamed the scandal on his alcoholism.

“I did something I shouldn’t have done,” Mills said in Little Rock, Ark., 10 days later. “I drank some champagne when I knew it went to my head quickly. And it did.”

Mills was elected to his 19th and final House term a month later, but he was held to 59% of the vote. He stepped down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee during that term and saw both the committee and its chairman stripped of many of its powers.

After learning of the former chairman’s death, President Bush, who once represented Texas in the House, said in a statement: “Congressman Mills served with great distinction. As chairman, he provided me with a solid education on this nation’s tax laws when we served together on the House Ways and Means Committee.”

Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, called Mills “one of the most powerful and brilliant members of the House of Representatives in this century.” He also praised Mills for his efforts to fight alcohol abuse.

After the Tidal Basin incident, Mills entered a hospital for treatment of alcoholism.

As a recovered alcoholic, Mills spoke to civic clubs, state legislatures and congressional committees about the need for treatment programs.

First elected to Congress in 1939 at age 29, Mills worked as a lawyer in Washington after his retirement from Congress and later moved back to Arkansas.

While in Congress, he was mentioned as a possible nominee for Treasury secretary, the U.S. Supreme Court and even President.

Mills was born on May 24, 1909, in Kensett, about 60 miles northeast of Little Rock. He married his high school sweetheart, Clarine Billingsley, in 1934.

After four years at Hendrix College in Conway, Ark., and graduation from Harvard Law School in 1933, Mills worked for a year as a cashier in his father’s bank, then opened his own law office in Searcy.

Mills is survived by his wife and two daughters.