U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a military operation in Venezuela, detain its president and assume temporary control of the country has reshaped the political landscape in Washington, placing foreign intervention at the centre of a year dominated by looming midterm elections.
Reuters cited that the move, unveiled at a midday press conference, signalled a decisive break from Trump’s long-held criticism of overseas entanglements and his repeated promises to keep the United States out of foreign wars.
Instead, the president left open the prospect of deeper military involvement, an extended role in Venezuelan politics and oversight of the country’s vast oil resources, including the possibility of deploying “boots on the ground”.
“We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition,” Trump said, offering few details on how long the United States would remain involved or how authority would be transferred, even as key figures from Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle appeared to retain power.
The intervention stands in stark contrast to Trump’s rhetoric at the start of his second term. At his inauguration last January, he told supporters: “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, by the wars we never get into.”
Since then, however, Trump has authorised strikes in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen and Somalia, ordered the destruction of dozens of suspected drug-smuggling vessels and issued threats against Greenland and Panama.
The overnight assault on Venezuela, which struck Caracas and other regions and resulted in the capture of Maduro and his wife to face drug-trafficking charges in New York, was his most forceful military action to date.
For Republicans hoping the White House would remain focused on domestic issues such as living costs, healthcare and the economy, the operation has raised alarms.
Trump defended the move as consistent with his “America First” doctrine, arguing that instability in Venezuela posed a direct threat to US interests.
“We want to surround ourselves with good neighbors. We want to surround ourself with stability. We want to surround ourself with energy,” he said, pointing to Venezuela’s oil reserves.
Yet dissent within Trump’s own political base has been swift. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a prominent MAGA figure who is set to resign from Congress next week, accused the president of abandoning the movement’s core principles.
“This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
With congressional elections approaching in November, Democrats see the Venezuela operation as fertile ground for attack. Control of both the House and Senate is expected to hinge on a small number of races, and Republicans’ narrow majorities could be at risk if voters recoil from prolonged foreign involvement.
“Let me be clear, Maduro is an illegitimate dictator, but launching military action without congressional authorization, without a federal plan for what comes next, is reckless,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a call with reporters.
Although Trump has sought to highlight his role in winding down conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza while pressing his case for a Nobel Peace Prize, history suggests that military interventions tend to dominate public attention and carry political danger.
Before the attack, US public opinion was firmly against the use of force in Venezuela, with only about one in five Americans supporting military action to remove Maduro, according to a November Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The operation has also reopened an ideological rift among Republicans over executive war powers and America’s role abroad. Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio spent Saturday contacting lawmakers to shore up support.
Senator Mike Lee, a libertarian-leaning Republican, initially questioned the legality of the strike without a declaration of war or authorisation for the use of military force. After speaking with Rubio, he said he believed the action likely fell within presidential authority.
Others remained unconvinced. Representative Thomas Massie wrote on X that Trump’s warning of further strikes “Doesn’t seem the least bit consistent” with Rubio’s assurances to Lee.
In a separate post, he added: “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
For a president who has repeatedly drawn contrasts with Republican “neoconservatives”, the parallels with earlier administrations have become harder to ignore. Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983 after declaring its government illegitimate, while George H.W. Bush sent troops into Panama in 1989 to depose Manuel Noriega, another leader wanted on US drug charges. In both cases, Washington installed successor governments.
Elliott Abrams, Trump’s former envoy on Venezuela, argued that the president faced limited political danger at home provided US casualties were avoided.
“He has a lot of latitude as long as American troops are not dying,” Abrams said, while conceding uncertainty over the administration’s endgame. “I don’t know what running Venezuela means.”
“He’s done the right thing in removing Maduro,” added Abrams, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The question is whether he will do the right thing in supporting democracy in Venezuela.”
Others warn that the United States may now be committed to a long and complex transition. Brett Bruen, a former adviser in Barack Obama’s administration, said Washington risked becoming deeply enmeshed in Venezuelan affairs with wider regional consequences.
“I don’t see any short version of this story,” said Bruen, now head of the Global Situation Room consultancy. “The U.S. will get tangled up in Venezuela but will also have new problems to contend with related to its neighbours.”- January 4, 2025
.jpg)
