Here’s the latest.
For several months, a notable portion of President Trump’s political supporters has expressed frustration over what they perceive as his excessive focus on foreign affairs — negotiating a deal regarding Ukraine and addressing various conflicts he claims to have resolved — while neglecting the economic concerns facing Americans. His declaration on Saturday that the U.S. had apprehended Venezuela’s leader and would “manage” the nation indefinitely has intensified these concerns. As details of the operation came to light on Saturday, some critics argued that Mr. Trump is jeopardizing the U.S. by engaging in an open-ended conflict that he previously condemned. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a Trump ally but now a critic, shared online. “Boy were we wrong.”Protesters outside the White House on Saturday. Credit…Eric Lee for The New York TimesMr. Trump, who has committed to ending “endless wars” and decreasing the number of U.S. troops abroad, did not dismiss the possibility of sending forces to Venezuela — a notion he has only hinted at previously. Speaking with reporters, he stated that the U.S. is “not afraid of boots on the ground,” adding that the administration intends to maintain a military presence in the country “as it pertains to oil.”“We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure,” Mr. Trump remarked in comments that astonished some Republicans, who questioned how these ambiguous plans aligned with his promise to avoid military intervention and regime change. “We’re going to run it properly and ensure the people of Venezuela are taken care of.”In the past, Mr. Trump has risked alienating his supporters over military involvement, especially leading up to his strikes against Iran in June. However, those strikes targeted three underground nuclear facilities, allowing Mr. Trump to execute a high-risk bombing mission from thousands of miles away, bury the uranium stockpiles, and return home. The backlash eventually subsided.However, what transpired in Caracas was distinct. Mr. Trump dismantled the Venezuelan government and made it clear that the United States intends to take control.“We’re going to run the country right,” Mr. Trump asserted on Saturday. “It’s going to be managed very judiciously, very fairly. It’s going to generate a lot of revenue.”With those declarations, Mr. Trump embraced a version of what former Secretary of State Colin Powell dubbed the “Pottery Barn rule,” which essentially means you break it, you own it. This doesn’t inherently suggest that a permanent U.S. military presence in Venezuela will mimic that which the U.S. maintained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, it implies ongoing political intervention, with at least the implicit threat of military support.Mr. Trump noted on Saturday that his administration was “ready to carry out a second wave” following the initial operation in Venezuela, but determined that it wasn’t necessary at this time.Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and former State Department official during Mr. Trump’s time in office, indicated that the strategy involving Venezuela was “truly astonishing.”“That is not something the president outlined, not during the campaign and not in the last few months,” Mr. Bartlett stated.Ultimately, the level of any backlash may hinge on future developments. “This is the tricky part,” said Dave Carney, a Republican strategist who managed Preserve America, a pro-Trump super PAC. “Nobody wants a quagmire. Nobody wants to see body bags returning to Dover of American soldiers being targeted by, you know, rebel factions in Venezuela.”“If it drags on for three years, it will be detrimental,” Mr. Carney remarked. But should the U.S. presence in Venezuela last for mere months, Mr. Trump “will be celebrated.”In Florida, where the largest Venezuelan community in the U.S. resides, both Venezuelans and Venezuelan-Americans did, in fact, react to the apprehension of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, by celebrating in the streets. Many Republicans appeared inclined to support Mr. Trump, including Senator Mike Lee from Utah, who initially voiced reservations about the operation.Mr. Lee later stated in a social media post that after conferring with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he believed the military action “we witnessed tonight was executed to protect and defend those carrying out the arrest warrant” for Mr. Maduro.Supporters of the operation in Venezuela also included foreign policy hawks, who have long been at odds with the MAGA movement. “I’m grateful to the U.S. personnel who acted under difficult conditions,” remarked Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky. “A free, democratic, and stable Venezuela, led by its own citizens, aligns with America’s national security interests.”Venezuelans and Venezuelan Americans celebrating the capture of President Nicolas Maduro in Doral, Fla., on Saturday. Credit…Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesMr. Trump’s aides have contended that military actions against Venezuela align with his campaign pledges by asserting that Mr. Maduro has instigated domestic issues in the U.S., including gang violence and a rise in drug overdoses linked to fentanyl.However, the fentanyl contributing to America’s overdose crisis is produced in Mexican labs utilizing chemicals sourced from China. The U.S. intelligence community had also previously undermined Mr. Trump’s assertion that Mr. Maduro dispatched members of the Tren de Aragua gang to the United States, clarifying that the gang was not under the control of the Venezuelan leader.Laura Loomer, the far-right activist and Trump ally who backed the Iran attack, joined Tucker Carlson and others in opposing the Venezuelan operation, claiming that the American public will ultimately bear the consequences. “Perhaps soon we shall see an invasion of Venezuela so that” Maria Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition figure who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025, “can take control in a nation she will never manage without U.S. support.” Loomer argued that the outcome would pave the way for China, among others, to deepen their influence.Such perspectives speak to a critical debate: Who defines America First?Mr. Trump, who first toyed with this phrase in a New York Times interview in 2016, has claimed ownership of it — even though he didn’t — and therefore sees himself as the one entitled to define it. Some of his MAGA loyalists clearly disagree. However, at the core of this disagreement lies the reality that Mr. Trump is not an isolationist, even if many of his supporters might be. The individual who could encounter future political fallout from an extended military presence in Venezuela is Vice President JD Vance, who is generally viewed as Mr. Trump’s successor within the MAGA movement. He did not attend Mr. Trump’s news briefing on Saturday.Mr. Vance, who observed the operation in Venezuela via video conference, has previously advocated for military restraint. “No more vague missions. No more open-ended conflicts,” Mr. Vance remarked to a graduating class at the U.S. Naval Academy earlier this year.On Saturday, Mr. Vance voiced his support for the military intervention. “The president provided multiple off-ramps, but was consistently clear throughout this process: The drug trafficking must cease, and the stolen oil must be restored to the United States,” Mr. Vance wrote on social media. “Maduro is the latest individual to discover that President Trump means what he says.”Whether all of Mr. Trump’s supporters truly concur may remain in question.
Published: 2026-01-03 23:54:00
source: www.nytimes.com
