Politically Speaking: Rep. Mike Levin discusses Venezuela, Greenland, ACA subsidies

Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA 49th) joined Politically Speaking this week to offer perspectives on the barrage of headlines that have kept lawmakers busy during the first week of 2026.

A transcript of the conversation is below.

Safchik: We are only about a week into the new year, but if the onslaught of consequential headlines over the last eight days portends anything, this is going to be a busy year. Just today, Thursday, the Senate advanced a bipartisan resolution to require congressional authorization for military force against Venezuela. Joining us from the Capitol to talk about the midterms, foreign policy and funding for projects here at home is Congressman Mike Levin. Congressman, thank you, as always, for your time.

Levin: Thank you, Joey. Good to be with you, as always.

Safchik: Enough news to make your head spin. Kind of tough to know where to begin today, right? But I do want to address that war powers measure. Is that coming too late?

Levin: Well, I think that what the president and what the administration did in Venezuela does violate article one of the Constitution, which says that only the Congress of the United States can authorize war. And so, yes, Joey, I think that the strike against Maduro was a violation of both the Constitution and of international precedent and law. That being said, I think the point of the senators today was that any further military action in Venezuela, regardless of what one thought of the strike on, Maduro, the capture of Maduro, any further military action is now subject to article one of the Constitution, particularly as the United States says that there need to be boots on the ground to protect or to to advance the oil interests in the country. The second piece of this for me is that that oil is not the property of the United States. Just because Donald Trump says it is the property of the United States. And just as Trump is alleging that Venezuela stole the oil from Americans, I don’t think it is right or responsible for America to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. And that’s the estimate, not tens of billions, but hundreds of billions for American tax dollars to subsidize the oil companies, to go in, and to rebuild that aging infrastructure. And what I hope people know about this is that even if they were to do a perfect job in over a number of years, build that oil infrastructure back to where it was, it would still only be about 3 to 4% of the global supply, and would mean very little in terms of the actual per gallon of gas that the average American sees at the pump. So hundreds of billions of dollars on top of the billions already spent, on a mission to capture Maduro, that went forward on very shaky legal grounds without congressional authorization. We don’t need another forever war, Joey. This is deeply irresponsible and problematic.

Safchik: How do you feel about the bipartisanship that was on display to advance that in the Senate? And do you anticipate this passing in the House?

Levin: I was encouraged to see the likes of Josh Hawley, and others, decide, to, to stand up for the Congress and to stand up for the Constitution. It is not Partizan to believe that the Congress of the United States, the people’s representatives that were sent to Washington, DC, and we have no greater responsibility, in my view, than to make the determination whether or not to send our brave American military into harm’s way. It’s also not to discount, Joey, that our military operation there, under the leadership of General Keane, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was truly extraordinary, and was conducted with efficiency and skill. All credit to the men and women of our military. But again, Congress was not consulted. And the oil company executives apparently knew more than members of Congress in the days and hours leading to the strike against Maduro. And that is simply unacceptable.

Safchik: The president is unlikely to sign this into law. What message do you hope it sends to the president and to the American people? Regardless?

Levin: Well, you asked also if the House would support it. I don’t know the answer to that. I’m going to be having conversations today and in the coming days with my Republican colleagues that I respect to ask, if they are willing, as Josh Hawley was, as some of the other Republicans were, to stand up for the Congress and the Constitution. And I look, I think that the message that ultimately I should send is a reminder to this administration that they do not act with impunity. And the executive branch does not act in a vacuum. The founders set up our constitutional system of government with the legislative branches. Article one. Article one. Joey, by design, the executive is article two. It is up to the Congress of the United States alone to declare war, to authorize the use of military force. And of course, it’s up to the Congress to have the power of the purse as well. When the president, United States says we’re going to increase the military budget from 1 trillion to 1,000,000,000,005. Just as though he can do it. With the stroke of a pen, he cannot. That goes through the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member. We need to stand up for checks and balances and stand up for Congress in the Constitution, perhaps as never before, Joey. And that’s exactly what I intend to do.

Safchik: What do you believe was the motivation behind this operation in Venezuela?

Levin: Well, you know, the president and his team, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and others briefed us, privately. The president never briefed this headset, and Rubio briefed us privately, saying it was all about narco trafficking. That was the brief that we had right before, the end of the year. And, of course, at the same time, Trump is pardoning the former president of Honduras, who’s a convicted narco-trafficker of a far higher order than any allegation against Nicolas Maduro.  So I think to say that it was primarily about narco trafficking is just flat out false. It’s clear to me it was about two things. It was about regime change. But really, at the end of the day, it’s about oil. It’s about a handful of oil executives who stand to make an absolute fortune and are going to try to use American taxpayer dollars to subsidize the rebuilding of that oil infrastructure that has been decaying and dilapidated now for some time. I think it’s a gross misuse of American taxpayer funds and.

Safchik: I’d love to know about your new legislation seeking to prevent that. While we’re on that topic.

Levin: Well, working with my friend Senator Jeff Merkley, we are introducing bicameral legislation that would ban American taxpayer dollars from being used to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. It simply does not make economic sense if these oil companies are unwilling to spend their own money to build the infrastructure. That should tell you something. Oil being at $63 a barrel. You should realize that there’s no financial incentive for these oil companies to go and rebuild this infrastructure unless they’re forced or pushed to do so by Trump, or unless they’re encouraged because of the massive tax subsidies or direct reimbursements that the Trump administration is contemplating. I don’t think that’s a good use of American taxpayer dollars. As I said, it would be pennies at the pump for the average consumer. The real winners would be a handful of big oil executives who happen to be, by the way, some of the president’s very biggest donors. If you remember, during the 2024 election, Trump met with the largest oil company executives and said, if you put me back in power, I will do whatever you want. And Donald Trump has not kept many promises, but this one, it appears he’s kept.

Safchik: Does that legislation stand a chance of making it through this Congress?

Levin: Well, I think, you know, anything is possible around here. I’m going to continue to have discussions with Democratic and Republican colleagues as well. Senator Merkley, and we’re going to try to find a few good Republicans that might be willing to partner on this, who might be willing to say that enough is enough, and we shouldn’t be using hundreds of billions, billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to rebuild Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. We’d be far better to use that money in any number of ways other than that. And if I can find a few good Republicans, we know that the discharge petition, given the weakness of speaker Mike Johnson, I call him deputy Speaker because Trump is really in charge of the Republican House members. Mike Johnson is not going to move the bill. But if we had 218 signatures on a petition, we could move the bill. That’s exactly what we’ve done with the Affordable Care Act tax credits. It’s exactly what we did with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And I think we have an opportunity to do it in other ways as well. And I’ll be keeping my eyes and ears open for any good Republicans willing to partner with me on this.

Safchik: President Trump says U.S. oversight of Venezuela could last for years. What would that mean for both the people of Venezuela and the people of the United States?

Levin: Well, I think for all involved, it certainly looks like another forever war. It looks like no clear end date and no clear game plan to be able to end this. And I thought that President Trump had run on the idea of avoiding more forever wars and getting us out of forever wars. It appears that’s not the case. It appears that he is putting the financial interests of a handful of oil executives ahead of the well-being of the American people and the American taxpayer, and that is deeply disturbing. The other thing I’ll say, Joey, is that if you consider Trump’s decision to now try to dominate the Western Hemisphere, he calls it the Trump corollary, corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. What it could have the effect of doing is empowering, emboldening XI Jinping and Vladimir Putin and their respective spheres of influence, providing them a permission structure to unilaterally target Taiwan for Putin to continue to target Ukraine. Trump’s unilateral action against Maduro and action in Venezuela, I think, could have very significant geopolitical consequences for years and even decades to come.

Safchik: While we’re looking abroad, is Greenland next? Is that conversation about shock in all or is this legitimate?

Levin: Well, this is absolutely crazy, Joey, because Denmark, of course, is a NATO country. And so any attack on Greenland would trigger article five and we would then be fighting the United States would then be fighting against our NATO allies, which means you can kiss NATO goodbye. I think it would be an absolute disaster. And, I think that, the president and the administration, regardless of Stephen Miller’s worldview, they’re going to find, members of Congress are not going to stand for this. And I think there will be many members of the Republican Party, I hope, anyway, that will stand up to this and understand it would be incredibly counterproductive. It would kneecap our most important alliances around the world and send a horrible message to the international community.

Safchik: Do you think the checks and balances provided by Congress are strong enough right now?

Levin: Well, it’s not whether I believe they’re strong enough. The Constitution demands that these checks and balances are in place. And, you know, ultimately, even this Supreme Court, I believe, is going to push back against the administration on certain things they’ve done, whether it’s tariffs, whether it’s some of the immigration policies. I think you will see more decisions, from the Supreme Court that contradict the, unilateral and deeply irresponsible actions of the president. And I think the tariff decision could be coming any day.

Safchik: Let’s talk domestic policy, specifically health care. Do you cling on to any hope that Americans covered by the Affordable Care Act will see those subsidies reinstated?

Levin: Well, I do have hope, but I worry that Republicans are not going to allow a deal to proceed. You know, here in the House, we were told that we’d never be able to overcome the obstacles in front of us with Mike Johnson and others, all saying they would not negotiate in any way, shape or form on this. They would not extend those credits. They would allow health care premiums to spike for tens of millions of Americans. And very sadly, Joey, at the end of the year, that’s exactly what happened. The estimate is that if these credits are not extended, about 2 million people this year alone will not sign up for health insurance, and will go off the health insurance rolls. That’ll make everybody’s care more expensive and worse. And so, we in the house here are going to pass a three year extension via discharge petition. That mechanism I just mentioned to you, you ought to be able to have those credits, at least for the next few years. Of course, that’s going to go to the Senate and then the Senate is very unlikely to vote having 60 votes, which it requires in the Senate. On this, I think what they will do, what Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and others have said, Bernie Marino, Republican of Ohio, is that they’re going to push for a two year extension, with some other restrictions. If they do that and they’re able to pass it with 60 votes, that would come back to the House for further consideration on that version. So I hope that they get something done over there. But every day that goes by that we don’t have a deal on, this is a day that millions of Americans, because of Republican stubbornness over this issue. It’s another day. Americans are seeing their premiums spike, and they may be at risk of having to decide between health care and groceries or health care and rent. And it’s simply unacceptable.

Safchik: Do you feel like your party’s hands are tied when it comes to actually lowering health care costs right now? What can you do besides shouting from the rooftops?

Levin: Well, we did it in that we changed the narrative in the House. We got four Republicans to join us to sign a petition to force a vote that will be coming, that will pass the House to get the three year extension, the clean three year extension of those credits. So even in the minority, because the speaker is so weak and doesn’t have his side under control, we are able to work with a handful of good Republicans where we’re able to use the discharge petition as a mechanism. And, Joey, this is never in my experience, this has never been done in the last time that Congress has used the discharge petition in this way to this extent, was in 1935 to 1937. That was the last time you had a speaker of the House this week, this ineffective. And unfortunately, Mike Johnson has just rolled over for whatever reason. Maybe he doesn’t want to get thrown out the way Kevin McCarthy did. I don’t know, but it’s really sad to me because there are so many good bipartisan ideas in the House of Representatives, many of which I’ve championed for many, many years and tried to push, and we were able to get them through. Even with Kevin McCarthy, we got a number of them through. And now with Mike Johnson, everything’s come to a standstill, which is why the discharge petition is going around. Mike Johnson getting a majority of members to sign a petition forcing the floor vote, is the vehicle that we’ve been forced to use.

Safchik: Segue going into the midterm elections. How does your party leverage this health care battle in these campaigns without appearing to make gains based on the financial suffering of the American people?

Levin: And I’ll leave the politics to the pundits on it. I want to do all we can to try to get these credits extended so that people’s premiums come down. And I mean that sincerely. I ran for office and continue to serve in office and try to help people. So I know that there have been some that have said, well, you know, let people touch the stove, let the credits expire. They’ll blame them, blame the Republicans. I just reject that sort of thing out of hand. I think, you know, again, I was sent here to try to help people, try to reduce costs, try to deal with health care and clean up corruption. And that’s exactly what I’m going to keep doing. Whatever the politics are of that, I’m willing to let the chips fall.

Safchik: A meaningful story this week that I think has gotten lost in the noise a bit. Is the health department freezing social service and child care funding for a handful of Democratic led states, including California? What does that mean for your district?

Levin: Well, it’s just so outrageous and disheartening, and it’s all political retribution. There’s no evidence of widespread fraud or anything like that. And of course, we saw the situation in Minnesota, but in California, it’s basically freeze the funds and then go try to chase down reasons for having frozen them. And it hurts children all across my district, all across our state. And, Joey, I’ve said before, we’ll say again, there’s no greater dollar that the federal government can spend, no greater investment that we can make with a greater return on that investment than investing in our kids and investing in early childhood education and early childhood programs. We know from all the available evidence that when you invest in kids, when you improve their outcomes, their ability later in life to be productive members of our community, to be productive citizens and taxpayers, their social outcome, their, their, rate of incarceration goes way down. Their tax, the amount of taxes they pay goes way up. The studies I’ve seen suggest it’s anywhere from a 7-to-1 to a 10-to-1 economic multiplier when you invest seven, when you give us $1 in a, in a child, you get 7 to 10 back. That’s the best deal I know of for the American taxpayer. And the Trump administration should be ashamed for freezing these funds out of political retribution against California.

Safchik: Well, what can you do to unfreeze those funds? Is there any oversight guarantee you can make?

Levin: As an Appropriator, please know I’m going to do everything humanly possible to hold them to account for these decisions, to expose that it’s merely done out of retribution rather than any sort of substantive reason. And we’re going to fight like crazy, to, to make sure that those funds go to the people of California, you know, we pay as much in federal taxes as we get back.

In fact, we pay more than we get back as Californians. And the audacity of this administration to freeze these funds and to hurt kids in the process. It’s just beyond the pale. It’s just so counterproductive, for people that voted for President Trump, for people that didn’t, who cares? These are kids we’re talking about. This should never, ever, hurt them in this way.

Safchik: Your district also saw some $10.5 million in grant funding affected last year, according to the New York Times. What does that mean for your district, for your constituents? What is impacted?

Levin: Well, I was very upset to see that some of the innovative energy projects that our constituents were working on, whether on battery storage or the rest were impacted by that. But I have been encouraged, I’ve been working very hard as an appropriator to get additional resources for our district. And I am encouraged that in one of the appropriations bills that I hope we’re going to pass this week, the energy and water bill, there’s actually $29 million in that bill, including about 26 million for a long overdue flood control project in Oceanside, the San Luis Rey River, which I’m very excited about. But make no mistake, I’m going to fight back against any politicization of federal funding. And California clearly, clearly, does not deserve this. The president has a grudge, and we’re the victim of that grudge, and we just need to make the case as best we can. And I need my California Republicans to stand up and fight back. And frankly, they haven’t been.

Safchik: Very, very quickly, Congressman, as we head into this midterm election year, what is your top priority?

Levin: Well, I would say I’ve got a few not to evade the question, Joey, but it’s it’s, you know, Kate, we’re capable of walking and chewing gum, getting the health care premiums back on track, making sure people can afford their care, dealing with the cost of living all that is so important. Getting the waste off our coast at San Onofre has been a top priority of mine. For as long as I’ve been in Congress, we’ve been leading the charge in a bipartisan way. And in fact, we just got tens of millions more in the same appropriations bill, to finally have a national strategy to get the waste off our coast. This is one of those things I’ve been able to work with the Trump administration very closely and very well, and we’re making excellent progress. We just need to stay the course. It can’t happen fast enough, for me. But I’m going to continue to do everything I can to bring resources to our region or San Diego region. I take great honor in being the appropriator for the region as well. And, I just love the work that I do. And I’m very grateful to have the opportunity to do it, and I never take that for granted.

Safchik: Well, Congressman, thank you so much for your generous time this morning and happy New Year.

Levin: Thank you. You too. Joey, take care.