Democrats Challenge Trump’s Venezuelan Intervention
In the wake of President Trump’s “Operation Absolute Resolve” – a military action that resulted in the dramatic capture and extraction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro from Caracas – prominent Democrats have voiced strong opposition. Leading this chorus of criticism is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who appears to be positioning himself for a potential 2028 presidential run. While acknowledging Maduro’s notorious reputation, Newsom expressed significant concern about the operation’s long-term implications. “Maduro is a thug and a criminal. But Donald Trump proposing to ‘run’ Venezuela without a coherent long-term plan beyond an oil grab is dangerous for America,” Newsom stated, as reported by The Hill. His critique centers on what he perceives as a lack of comprehensive strategy for Venezuela’s future, emphasizing that any path forward “must be democracy, human rights, and stability.” Newsom’s stance reflects broader Democratic concerns about the nature and motivation behind this significant foreign policy move.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who recently declined to pursue Newsom’s soon-to-be-vacant gubernatorial seat, echoed similar sentiments in her criticism of the operation. Harris characterized Trump’s actions as those of a “regional strongman” primarily motivated by securing Venezuela’s valuable oil reserves rather than genuine humanitarian concerns. Her pointed criticism included claims that “There is no exit plan,” suggesting the operation was driven by “Trump’s desire” rather than the collective interests of the American people. This perspective aligns with a consistent Democratic narrative questioning both the legitimacy and strategic wisdom of the intervention, portraying it as potentially self-serving rather than in service of broader American foreign policy objectives or Venezuelan democratic aspirations.
Pete Buttigieg, the former Transportation Secretary, added his voice to the growing Democratic opposition, using particularly sharp language to frame the operation as a “war for regime change” designed to divert attention from domestic economic challenges. Taking to social media platform X, Buttigieg stated, “The American people don’t want to ‘run’ a foreign country while our leaders fail to improve life in this one,” effectively suggesting that the administration should focus on addressing issues at home rather than engaging in foreign interventions. His commentary connects the Venezuelan operation to broader criticisms of the administration’s economic policies, implying that international adventures serve as a distraction from domestic shortcomings. This framing attempts to redirect public attention to what Democrats consider more pressing concerns for everyday Americans.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez offered perhaps the most direct accusation regarding the operation’s true motives. “It’s not about drugs,” she stated bluntly on social media, making reference to Trump’s recent pardoning of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who faced drug trafficking charges. Instead, AOC insisted, “It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs.” Her commentary introduces additional layers to the critique, suggesting the operation serves multiple diversionary purposes beyond economic distraction, including deflecting attention from controversial associations and healthcare policy failures. This represents the progressive wing’s particularly pointed rejection of the administration’s stated justifications for the Venezuelan intervention.
Even moderate Democrats have found themselves in an uncomfortable position responding to the operation. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona acknowledged the reality that Maduro is a “brutal, illegitimate dictator” who deserves prosecution, yet stopped short of endorsing the mission itself, citing troubling parallels to past military interventions like the Iraq War. His measured response contrasts with the more unequivocal condemnation from his Arizona colleague, Senator Ruben Gallego, who stated plainly: “No matter the outcome we are in the wrong for starting this war in Venezuela.” This spectrum of responses within the Democratic Party highlights the complex political calculus at play, as even those who recognize Maduro’s oppressive rule question the legitimacy, wisdom, and motives behind a unilateral American military intervention to remove him from power.
Despite this wave of Democratic criticism spanning from California to Congress, Maduro and his wife now find themselves in New York City custody facing serious narco-terrorism charges. The operation’s swift execution and Maduro’s current detention represent a significant foreign policy achievement for the Trump administration, regardless of the domestic political backlash. This dramatic development has created a clear divide between Republicans generally supporting the action as a bold strike against a dictator linked to drug trafficking and regional instability, and Democrats portraying it as an illegitimate overreach potentially motivated by oil interests rather than justice or democracy. As the legal proceedings against Maduro begin and the situation in post-Maduro Venezuela unfolds, these competing narratives will continue to shape American political discourse around the proper role of U.S. intervention abroad and the true motivations behind such actions.
