reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mister Miles Guo revealed that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has expanded its military presence in South America and small countries near Australia. The CCP used tactics like selling advanced and affordable drones to these countries, establishing drone bases, and using blackmail and bribery to gain influence. They also parked cargo ships near the Bahamas and Cuba, filled with military devices. The CCP built a massive underground embassy in the Bahamas and established military bases in these countries, including missile systems and satellite launch bases. Meanwhile, Speaker 1 expressed concerns about the Biden administration's China-focused policies, including the potential stacking of the Supreme Court, abandonment of energy independence, and China's influence on the White House.

Enhancing the Chinese economy may have long-term consequences for us. It is crucial to minimize our investment and gradually reduce our dependence on Chinese trade. However, finding the right approach to achieve this is challenging.

Feliz Navidad! We're at Fort Clayton, now called Ciudad de Sabana, near Miraflores Lock in the Panama Canal. The area has become a hub for NGOs and the UN, which some claim are facilitating immigration issues. If Trump is serious about addressing these invasions, he needs to shut down these organizations. The Panamanian government wants to collaborate with the U.S., but China's influence is growing due to U.S. absence. The Panamanian people are clear about their desire for partnership. I plan to reach out to the president of Panama for a discussion. Merry Christmas and goodbye!

Speaker 0 asserts a hard-edged leverage stance regarding Western military bases. The core claim is that “if you take it, we take every single base of the Americans from Aviano to Ramstein, from Romania to all the other military bases,” and that as a result “you will lose it.” The speaker frames this as the entire position of American power since World War II being contingent on these bases, and argues that Greenland must be relinquished if it is taken, stating, “If you take Greenland, you have to leave. It's very simple, missus Miller.” The speaker emphasizes that the leverage exists because “you need the spaces for global power protection,” but counters that “you won't have it.” The claim is made that the speaker’s side “can defend ourselves very well” and would do so “without The US nuclear shield, without The US troops in Europe, without the American bases.” The alternative proposed is to “simply run this bases ourselves,” and to “run your boys home into Chicago and Ohio and goodbye.” The stance further asserts a willingness to escalate: “If you go extreme, we go extreme as well. Be sure about it.” Throughout, the language centers on a reciprocal threat: dismantle or seize bases, and the other side loses global power projection; the speaker promises autonomous defense and a withdrawal of American forces as a consequence, paired with a warning of mutual escalation.

China uses other countries like Russia, Iran, and Hamas for its own benefit, without any real loyalty or friendship. Similarly, these countries rely on China for economic aid and military defense when they face isolation and sanctions from the US and its allies. This transactional relationship presents an opportunity for the US to intervene and disrupt these alliances. There is no honor among thieves, and when China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Hamas, and Hezbollah are all considered, they can be described as thieves or even violent extremists.

China did not build, operate, or intend to weaponize the Panama Canal. The speaker intends to reclaim the Panama Canal from Chinese influence. This reclamation will be undertaken with capable allies and partners.

Back in 2017 and 2018, President Trump shifted our national security focus to address the threat posed by China, believing we can win economically through supply chains, markets, and fair trade. Simultaneously, we're rebuilding our military to be the most lethal in the world. Panama has rejected China's Belt and Road Initiative, signaling a change. We're also cracking down on cartels, securing our border with joint patrols by the Mexican army and our border police and military. We now have a team fully aligned with President Trump's vision, including a great Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Treasury. We are building the rocket as we are launching it.

The Obama administration is said to have allowed China to expand its economic and cultural influence throughout South and Central America via infrastructure deals, surveillance, and indebtedness. The Trump administration aimed to counter this by reasserting American influence in the region. The speaker attended a conference of Central and South American countries, signaling intentions to invest in ways that serve American interests and curb Chinese influence. "First and Free" is presented as an example of this strategy. The Panamanian government is acknowledged as a good partner, as it is purportedly in their best interest to align with America rather than China.

Ian and Mario discuss the Venezuelan operation and its wider implications. - Maduro’s regime and Venezuela’s situation are contrasted with Chavez. Maduro is not as popular or charismatic, the economy is in shambles, and Venezuela possesses billions in Russian air defenses that failed to down US helicopters, highlighting a discrepancy between defense systems and battlefield outcomes. - The Washington assessment is that the operation to capture Maduro involved substantial internal support from Maduro’s circles, potentially including CIA-assisted tips and insider cooperation, enabling real-time intelligence on Maduro’s movements. This inside help is seen as a critical factor alongside the United States’ capabilities. - The operation was planned for months, with the White House reportedly approving strikes in advance as long as a window existed. The goal was to capture Maduro and bring him to the United States, not simply to eliminate him; the plan also involved a minimal American casualty count (one helicopter injury, no American deaths). - The vice president, Delsy Rodríguez, is discussed as a possible insider who might have privately engaged with the United States, though it’s not clear she knew the exact timing of the strike. Cuban intelligence was described as protecting Maduro, and Maduro’s inner circle would have had reasons to avoid leaks. - There was emphasis that the operation was not framed as democracy promotion or regime change, but rather about removing Maduro and establishing a transition that could reshape Venezuela’s leadership and oil/drug policy, with the oil sector and sanctions regime central to the US strategy. The leaders around Maduro, not Maduro alone, shape the outcome. - The Venezuelan air defense systems, largely Russian, were targeted and neutralized in advance of the Delta Strike Force. The attack demonstrated US surgical strike capabilities, but also underscored the risk of Venezuelan retaliation and the complexity of operating in a heavily defended airspace. - The discussion shifts to the political implications for allied and regional actors. The operation raises questions for Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Denmark (in terms of leverage and responses to US unilateral actions). Colombia, under Petro, faces considerable pressure as US leverage increases, while Brazil’s stance is tempered by prior sanctions and subsequent negotiations. Denmark and other partners are noted for their responses to geopolitical shifts. - China’s role is addressed: China had a delegation in Caracas at the time, with public shock at the US move. The US did not appear to have given heads-up to China. This underscores the multipolar dynamic where the US can project military power, but economic and technological power remains more distributed. - The broader geopolitical context includes Russia’s strategic vulnerabilities. The Venezuela operation signals American military capability and willingness to act unilaterally, yet Africa, the Middle East, and Ukraine illustrate ongoing limits and risks. Moscow’s alliances with Venezuela and Iran are highlighted, but the operation did not rely on formal mutual defense commitments; Russia’s global influence is depicted as waning in the face of US operational decisiveness. - The discussion covers potential long-term effects on global order. The US displays “extraordinary military capability” but faces political constraints as a democracy with checks and balances. The speaker warns of a possible “law of the jungle” trajectory if the US continues to rely on coercive power, potentially diminishing international legitimacy and provoking responses from China and others who possess economic leverage. - The possible phase two is referenced as a strategic instrument; if the new Venezuelan leadership does not align with US aims, offshore oil facilities could be targeted to compel compliance, signaling ongoing leverage without ground troop deployments. - Regarding Iran, there is no current plan for a Maduro-like operation. Israel’s potential pushes against Iran are discussed, but the US position remains cautious: strikes would be contingent on broader strategic considerations, with the US wary of deepening conflicts if not coordinated with partners. - Ian offers forecasts: Iran is likely to face increased pressure domestically and internationally, while Venezuela could see a transitional government for 12–18 months amid power-sharing negotiations, with ongoing instability possible as opposition figures push for more influence. The expectations emphasize ongoing US leverage, limited appetite for full regime change, and the risk that military weakness and political maneuvering will shape outcomes in the near term.

We've discussed Panama and the Darien Gap, but the situation in Colombia is alarming. During my recent visit, I observed the powerful Guytonista paramilitary group controlling smuggling routes and operating openly in the region. They facilitate human smuggling and are the primary cocaine suppliers to the U.S. The Colombian government, led by a far-left former guerrilla, appears to tolerate their activities, collaborating with them and the UN. This partnership allows terrorists and migrants to flow freely toward the U.S. border. Colombia's failure to manage its territory and the ongoing drug trade necessitate a drastic shift in U.S. policy. The U.S. should consider Colombia an adversarial nation and impose sanctions until they address these issues effectively. The American public needs to be aware of this situation.

If the US doesn't write the rules in that region, China will. This will shut the US out, negatively impacting American businesses and agriculture. This will result in a loss of US jobs.

Today, we discuss the Panama Canal, a significant achievement in American engineering that cost over 35,000 lives and nearly $400 million in the final decade of construction. The canal is crucial for U.S. national security and economic interests, yet its importance has been overlooked. President Trump raised concerns about potential violations of the treaty made by President Carter, particularly regarding China's influence and high transit fees affecting American ships. Chinese companies are involved in building a bridge across the canal and controlling ports, posing risks to U.S. security. Additionally, Panama's reliance on high transit fees impacts American consumers and the economy. The Canal Authority has generated record revenue, and Panama has engaged in questionable practices, including flagging vessels linked to Iran and benefiting from Chinese investments under the Belt and Road initiative.

Dmitry Sims junior introduces Brandon Weichert, a geopolitical analyst and author, and notes that Trump has floated annexing Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada, and the discussion aims to go beyond hype. Weichert argues that Trump’s approach is generally an art-of-the-deal tactic, starting with extreme positions to push concessions, and he breaks down the issues individually. On the Panama Canal Zone, Weichert says Trump is very serious about co-opting it. He notes the Canal was built by Americans and argues it should not have been handed over to Panamanians, who have allowed Chinese influence to grow in the area, including two large ports at both ends and $1 billion in infrastructure by state-owned Chinese firms. He suggests Chinese presence enables power projection and that the Canal Zone has been used for fentanyl flows and illegal migrants. Citing a colleague, Joe Humeyer, he asserts that a permanent U.S. hold could interdict fentanyl and migrant flows at the source, rather than at the border. On Greenland, Weichert describes the move as part of the art-of-the-deal dynamic, noting public opinion among Greenlanders is shifting toward independence from Denmark and could lead to rapid incorporation into the United States if independence occurs, drawing an analogy to Texas and California in the 19th century. For Canada, he contends the issue is likely a negotiation tactic: U.S. leverage over Canada’s trade benefits—which the U.S. says props up the Canadian economy—could destabilize Canada or trigger a regime change, potentially leading to U.S. annexation of parts like Alberta and Saskatchewan. He ties this to a broader Arctic great game among the United States, Russia, and China. Weichert adds a smaller, less widely reported point: Trump allegedly cut deals with tech magnates (David Sacks, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Steve Bannon) to secure AI-dominance, including allowing tech workers (H-1B visas) and ensuring access to energy, with Canada’s geothermal resources (notably in Alberta) playing a key role, thereby linking energy to AI ambitions. On prioritizing the Arctic, Weichert ranks Greenland as the most important, as it is the geographical pivot around which the Arctic orbits, enabling power projection and deterring Chinese access to rare earth resources. Canada follows as a longer-term project; the Northwest Passage represents a strategic alternative to Russia’s Northern Sea Route, and pressure on Canada could push toward surrender or realignment over the Passage. Regarding Greenland’s Arctic significance, Weichert says Russian analysts view U.S. drilling in the Arctic as an attempt to counter submarine threats, including Poseidon, a nuclear torpedo, and to establish a base network to mitigate submarine threats. He agrees deterrence is a factor, noting U.S. neglect of northern deterrence and the need to project naval power in the Arctic. Weichert distinguishes the primary driver as China, while acknowledging Moscow and Beijing’s alignment has grown due to Russia’s Arctic foothold and the Ukraine war, which has pushed Russia and China closer. He doesn’t deny that squeezing Russia in the Arctic is a Washington aim, but argues the main impetus for Trump is countering China. On implementation, Weichert says the Panama Canal Zone could be reabsorbed via a national security clawback, regardless of Panama’s preferences. Greenland, if independence occurs, could be absorbed or granted statehood, with congressional movement underway. He notes potential opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike, but predicts House Republicans and Senate Republicans will largely back Trump on Greenland, while Canada faces stronger pushback. Macron’s EU opposition to Greenland annexation is dismissed by Weichert as Europe being subordinate to U.S. and Russian interests; he muses that ending NATO over Greenland and Canada could simplify the great-power dynamics, though he acknowledges such a move would be controversial. Weichert maintains Greenland’s development of natural gas, oil, and rare earth minerals is central; Greenland’s resources and environmental regulations could facilitate rapid U.S. development if Greenland becomes a U.S. territory or state. He addresses U.S. shipbuilding capacity and Arctic power, noting the U.S. defense industrial base lags behind Russia and the need to revitalize shipyards with a new mission and potential reforms under the Trump administration, possibly aided by experts like John Conrad of gCaptain, to dramatically increase production within two years.

USAID has been unresponsive and misaligned with U.S. foreign policy, which is concerning given that taxpayer dollars are at stake. There is a need for USAID to cooperate and provide transparency about its programs and funding. The agency must align its efforts with the national interest, as it has historically failed to do so. During a recent conversation with Panama's President Molina, frustrations were expressed regarding Chinese control of the canal. However, the discussion was respectful, and there is hope for positive outcomes. Panama's decision to end its relationship with the Belt and Road Initiative is a step in the right direction, and ongoing cooperation on migration issues is also important. Overall, the visit was productive, but further work remains.

The border is secure, it's a top priority for any nation, including ours.

- The discussion opens with trying to map a post-war world, considering both a quick end to the war and a prolonged one, with a focus on US–China relations, US allies, Iran, and the broader region. A participant notes a broader battle between a China–Russia–Iran alignment and the Western alliance, including financial systems. - A major regional shift is already underway: by 2000, the top banks were dominated by Japanese and European players; by 2025, China dominates the top four banks. The speaker argues that power is moving from Western banks to China, and that countries with US-dollar-denominated debt are converting debt into renminbi because it’s cheaper. - In the last week, Russia and China signaled to Iran a push to revisit the Gulf security architecture. Putin spoke to Iraq about Gulf security; Wang Yi did the same. The implied shift is toward a Gulf security framework less dependent on US protection. - The current Gulf security model is described as US bases guaranteeing protection from Iran, coupled with a demand that recipient states buy US Treasuries and military equipment. The speakers argue this model left Gulf states vulnerable and exposed as US defense systems failed to prevent Iranian attacks in the recent episode. - Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and to a lesser extent the UAE) are discussed as potentially moving away from the United States toward Russia and China. A Pakistani ISI general reportedly said Saudi and Qatari leaders are breaking from the US; one NBC report cited Trump canceling Project Freedom due to Saudi resistance to air operations from Prince Saud Air Base. The implication is a Persian Gulf broadly shifting into the Russian–Chinese sphere, potentially altering Gulf financial flows away from the US dollar toward gold and the yuan. - An opposing view, aired by another economist, suggests the US will strengthen its deterrence in the Gulf, with UAE as an indicator. The counterpoint argues that the Gulf countries previously supported Iran’s adversaries, including indirect funding for attacks on Iran, implying US deterrence remains necessary. - The conversation emphasizes the gulf’s deterrence history: Iran has largely avoided offensive military action in the Gulf against the region, while Gulf states have relied on US protection. The lack of a robust Chinese or Russian security guarantee in the region is highlighted as a real risk to Gulf security calculations. - There is a debate about whether US military power remains credible. One participant argues the US has not won a major war since World War II, with recent actions described as limited or draw outcomes; another contends that US protection remains essential despite past failures, given Iran’s capabilities and history. - Military-strategy discussions cover the feasibility of a ground invasion vs. airstrike-only approaches. The speakers outline logistical challenges (water, supply lines, mountainous terrain) and the scale of forces needed (potentially large, multi-month training and buildup) to degrade Iran’s missile and drone capabilities. Arguments are made that holding the Strait of Hormuz would be difficult if Iran can still launch missiles and drones from interior positions. - The strategic importance of Gulf exports is quantified: Gulf oil about 32% of world supply; LNG around 20% (centered on Qatar and the Gulf), urea and sulfur for agriculture and industry (urea ~36%; sulfur for refining and semiconductors), and helium from Qatar at about 33%. Keeping the Gulf open is framed as essential to global energy, inflation, and agriculture. - A possible pathway to open the Hormuz is proposed: Iran could offer broad access to global markets except for countries allied with Israel or those that attacked Iran; Iran would leverage this to restart global flows, particularly to Asia. The idea is that a near-term crisis could force a negotiated settlement with Iran. - The timeline mentions a forthcoming peace negotiation in Beijing next week, with skepticism about it proceeding smoothly. If negotiations occur, Trump would not likely receive a warm reception due to recent sanctions and US actions against China; China has signaled resolve against US sanctions, instructing its companies not to acquiesce to pressure. - Overall, the dialogue frames the war as a potential catalyst for a broader realignment: power shifting toward China and Russia, a Gulf region hedging its security through new alliances, and the global economy recalibrating around yuan- and gold-based financial flows, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a central strategic chokepoint.

He got everything in Panama in record time, but the press won't report it because it's a victory for Trump. Chinese companies are out. The US got what it wanted out of Panama. The US has troops there providing security for the canal now. The speaker thought negotiations were ongoing.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of a coup in Venezuela and the implications of U.S. actions. They emphasize naval movements as a signal of U.S. seriousness, noting the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford and associated ships as a trigger that indicates a real threat or action. They remark that if Maduro steps down, chaos could follow, and acknowledge that Maduro has discussed amnesty with the U.S. that Trump reportedly refused. Speaker 2 repeatedly highlights naval movements as a metric for U.S. intent to attack a country, recalling lessons from the CIA. He argues the U.S. is not strategically benefiting from intervention in Venezuela, given that the U.S. has decided not to buy or refine Venezuelan oil, and questions what upside there is for the U.S. in such action. He asserts that drugs in Venezuela originate from Colombia and Ecuador and transit through Venezuela to West Africa and Europe, rather than serving the U.S. market, and he links this to broader critiques of U.S. foreign policy. Both speakers discuss the regional calculus: China’s increasing influence in Latin America, including a Caribbean refinery operation that refines Venezuelan crude, challenging U.S. refinery interests. They suggest China’s refiners and pipelines complicate U.S. strategies. They also discuss the potential role of Pakistan, Iran, or other powers in shaping outcomes, noting that many regional players (Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, and others) oppose U.S. intervention. Speaker 1 notes that a regime-change operation could undermine U.S. trust as an ally and references a platform called Polymarket where Maduro’s potential departure had been speculated, though newer developments show Maduro mobilizing the military. They raise a question about whether Maduro sought amnesty for the U.S. to step down, and say Trump’s refusal could reflect a desire for a political “scalp” to prove anti-drug policy, comparing this to the Panama case of Manuel Noriega. Speaker 2 elaborates that covert action programs are highly classified, and that even discussing them publicly is risky. He suggests that any coup would require a limited force to seize the presidential palace, pacify the military, and control key communications, with no clear plan for post-coup governance. They discuss the opposition leadership, noting Maria Machado as potentially not more effective than Juan Guaidó and suggesting the military would likely take power after Maduro’s departure. They compare possible futures to Libya post-NATO intervention, warning that anticipated constitutions and reforms often do not materialize in practice, leading to prolonged conflict. Speaker 2 emphasizes the international unpopularity of regime-change in Venezuela and argues that U.S. actions could provoke regional instability and further migration. The dialogue ends with reflections on the inherent dangers of regime change, the lessons from past interventions, and the possibility of Venezuelan instability if Maduro leaves. They caution against assuming flowers will greet invading forces and stress that historical outcomes often diverge from planners’ expectations, with a warning that a hypothetical post-regime-change period could be chaotic and military-led.

Speaker 0 contends that the world economy is severely damaged and worsening, blaming Israel’s influence, Trump’s policies, and BlackRock. They say Trump reversed the downturn but that his current behavior worsens the situation, describing him as a degenerate gambler who keeps betting with the people’s money. They warn that the global economy is being sunk by these decisions and that any recovery would be unlikely if he does not shut down the current course. Speaker 1 argues a simple plan: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and they won’t have one. They claim the president didn’t want to go that far, but there is no pressure from elsewhere. They assert victory will come, stating that militarily they have already achieved a complete victory in theory, with Iran’s navy effectively nullified and ships sunk by the U.S. They emphasize Iran’s strategy hinges on closing the Strait of Hormuz, not their blue-water navy. They note Iran has now made larger financial demands—a claim of $500,000,000,000 in reparations—describing these as part of a broader disaster. They accuse globalists and BlackRock of engineering the war to derail the Trump recovery, leading to inflation, fertilizer shortages, and a planetary downturn. They say there is no way to reverse this and warn that threats of further strikes against Iran could worsen the situation. They also accuse media and political figures of misrepresenting the war’s trajectory, and criticize those who supported the war for claiming to have been right. They suggest the debt situation is dire, with the national debt approaching or exceeding GDP in service, calling this a banana republic scenario. They describe a coming period of permanent austerity and a “great reset” via a central bank digital currency system, and contrast this with the supposed prior plan that could have rebuilt the economy. Speaker 2 adds that the United States holds all the cards if escalation occurs, but the goal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore open access without mines in the water or tolls. They emphasize the aim to return to the previous open state of the strait. Throughout, Speaker 0 revisits earlier warnings about the start of the war, insisting Schmoyle (Schmoy/ Schmoyle) had warned this would derail the global recovery. They recall personal discussions with Tucker Carlson about Trump’s assessment of the war’s consequences, noting that Trump claimed “everything I do always turns out okay,” even as the analyst contends the consequences have been severe. They reiterate that the “globalist trap” and the Iran war were designed to undermine the U.S. and world economy, with the goal of bringing about a prolonged austerity and a global cashless system. They describe demonstrably worsening indicators—stocks, oil, and rates rising; inflation accelerating; fertilizer shortages; and a deepening recession—arguing these dynamics confirm the planned malaise. They reference headlines about inflation, the Iran confrontation, and potential sleeper cells, and they criticize the left, Democrats, neocons, and “MAGA knob polishers” for supporting the war. They reiterate that the globalists’ objective is to derail the U.S. and Western economies and to push toward a controlled, austerity-driven global order, while claiming the administration’s responses are failing to reverse the trend.

Panama Canal concerns are rising. Donald Trump previously discussed reclaiming the canal, citing its historical significance and alleging that Panama broke its treaty with the U.S. by allowing China significant influence, including control of ports and infrastructure projects. Panamanians express strong opposition to losing the canal, emphasizing its national importance. Some Panamanians believe the U.S. is overcharged for canal usage compared to other nations, fueling Trump's claims. However, others maintain Panama manages the canal effectively, despite Chinese involvement in port operations and infrastructure. Recent protests against a U.S. official's visit highlight the tension surrounding the canal's future. The Panamanian president's announcement to not renew a China contract leaves the situation's long-term outcome unclear.

China is positioning itself to replace the US as the world hegemon by hosting a summit attended by 130 countries, including Vladimir Putin. The summit celebrated the 10th anniversary of China's belt and road initiative, which has invested $1 trillion in infrastructure in 70 countries. This serves to make China's exports cheaper and buy countries out of the US orbit. China offers a menu of infrastructure projects, such as ports, trains, power plants, and telecom networks, in exchange for influence. Chinese companies also gain control over the infrastructure they build. China is selling US treasuries and cracking down on US firms in China, suggesting it sees conflict with the US as likely and potentially beneficial.

In the Canal Zone of Panama City, the US government used to control this military base to protect the Panama Canal. However, it was given away by Jimmy Carter and is now under the control of the United Nations and NGOs. One of these organizations is OIM, which provided condoms and birth control to illegal aliens crossing into Panama. These organizations, like UNICEF and UNHCR, have taken over almost every building in the facility. The Clinton Foundation is also present. These organizations should be defunded and investigated for trafficking. They are complicit in the cartel's actions. Taxpayer dollars should not support them. They encourage people to risk their lives and illegally travel to the US. This is the root cause of the problem, supported by leftist, godless, globalist organizations like Kamala Harris.

Feliz Navidad! We're at Fort Clayton, now known as Ciudad de Sabana, near Miraflores Lock of the Panama Canal. Behind me is the IOM headquarters, which has taken over the former U.S. Army base. If Trump is serious about stopping the invasion, he needs to close down these NGOs and cut their funding. The real issue isn't Panama; it's the organizations facilitating the migration. I've spent time in the Darien Gap and know the local tribes involved. The U.S. has neglected its influence here, allowing China to gain a foothold. Panama wants to collaborate with us, and I plan to reach out to the president soon. Merry Christmas!

In the Western Hemisphere, we prioritize our independence from foreign powers and reject interference in our affairs. We have strengthened our laws to screen foreign investments for national security threats. We are working with Latin American partners to address the issues of uncontrolled migration, human smuggling, and trafficking. Illegal immigration funds criminal networks, gangs, and drug flow, exploiting vulnerable populations and causing crime, violence, and poverty. Upholding national borders and combating criminal gangs is crucial to breaking this cycle and establishing prosperity. Each nation has the right to set its own immigration policy, and the United States will not participate in the global compact on migration. The long-term solution to the migration crisis lies in helping people build better futures in their home countries.