Since descending an escalator in 2015 to launch his first presidential campaign, Donald Trump has repeatedly framed himself as an alternative to the traditional aggressive foreign policy of the United States. He has publicly labeled several of his political opponents as advocates of war, accusing them of prioritizing conflicts abroad over domestic priorities.
Yet his recent claim that US forces have detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, followed by statements implying Washington would take administrative control of Venezuela, has triggered global shock and internal political pushback.
Critics See a Shift From Anti-War Branding
Trump’s announcement has drawn parallels to the regime-change interventions he built a career opposing. Some supporters from his own MAGA political base, a movement originally centered on avoiding foreign conflicts and strengthening internal US interests, have expressed anger at the growing possibility of war in Latin America.
Despite this, Trump’s political influence within the Republican Party remains strong. Many GOP lawmakers praised the move, with senior legislators describing it as a moment of opportunity for Venezuelans.
GOP Leaders Praise Action, Critics Question Rhetoric
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham publicly applauded Trump, writing online:
“You and your team should be proud for initiating Venezuela’s liberation.”
Graham also added that removing Maduro was part of America’s security strategy, calling Venezuela the core of a dangerous drug network near US borders. His description of the country as a “drug caliphate” was criticized by analysts, who noted the wording appears to mirror political narratives used in the global “war on terror,” and leans on tropes that risk fueling anti-Islam stereotypes.
Graham also praised Trump for receiving the FIFA Peace Prize in December, presented by Gianni Infantino, and referred to him as one of the most impactful US presidents in history.
Some Republicans Cheer, Others Question Legality
Support for Trump’s statement was not limited to foreign-policy hardliners. Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, previously one of the strongest conservative voices opposing US military expansion, made a joke online referencing the capture, comparing it to security operations in El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
Libertarian-leaning Senator Rand Paul expressed limited criticism, saying that history will determine whether the decision leads to major cost or harm. Paul’s full statement mostly focused on rejecting socialism’s influence inside the US, while briefly cautioning that the US Constitution was built to prevent presidents from starting wars without Congress.
Republican Senator Mike Lee also questioned the legality of the operation, saying he hopes to understand what constitutional basis, if any, justified the attack without a congressional war authorization.
Lee later stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed him that US troops were executing a lawful arrest warrant against Maduro, and argued that the president has authority under Article II of the US Constitution to protect American personnel from imminent threats.
Dissenting Voices Cite Double Standards
One of the most vocal Republican critics was Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who rejected arguments that the operation was tied to Venezuela’s drug trade. She highlighted:
-
Venezuela is not a major fentanyl supplier
-
The US recently pardoned Honduran ex-President Juan Orlando Hernández, a convicted drug-trafficking figure, despite his 45-year sentence in US prison
Greene, who previously supported Trump but is now exiting Congress, said Americans are tired of paying for foreign conflicts while facing rising living costs at home. She warned that oil interests and leadership replacement, not public safety, may be driving the intervention.
Republican Congressman Tomas Massie and Tomas Massie? No, Congressman Tomas Massie—along with Tomas Massie? Actually Tomas Massie—and Congressman Tomas Massie? No, it’s Tomas Massie—shared a speech he delivered in the House earlier this month, warning that Venezuela could turn into a new long-term occupation conflict similar to Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam.
Massie asked Congress whether it was prepared to accept a scenario involving millions of refugees and billions of US funding to rebuild a nation destabilized by war.
He said:
“If this cost is acceptable, Congress must vote on it to reflect the people’s voice and respect constitutional authority.”
Short-Term Success, Long-Term Uncertainty
Trump’s Venezuela operation was a short-term strategic success, securing Maduro’s custody at very low cost. However, political analysts warn that public opinion may later shift, just as the Republican Party once backed the 2003 Iraq invasion, before the country later recognized it as a major geopolitical failure.
Today, there is a broad US political consensus that Iraq was a strategic disaster.
With US officials now discussing the possibility of deploying ground troops into Venezuela, fears are growing that the nation could face a long-term occupation scenario.
Who Leads Venezuela Now? No One Knows Yet
As of now, uncertainty remains high:
-
Maduro’s administration has not publicly confirmed his status
-
No verified leadership structure is in place
-
Trump has not ruled out deploying troops for occupation
Authorities say the political control structure of Venezuela remains unclear, and the US president has hinted he could send military personnel to the country, reviving fears of historical US conflicts being repeated.
Proxy War Narrative Returns, Critics Warn
Massie said in his speech:
“Past presidents justified wars using false claims about WMDs. Now drugs are being framed as the WMDs.”