US faces domestic criticism over military operation in Venezuela

Voices of dissent have risen across the United States following the military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, with critics mainly from Congress and social media questioning the action's legality and underlying motives.

US forces carried out airstrikes on military sites in Caracas, including Fort Tiuna and La Carlota Air Base on Saturday. The operation included the arrest of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

Democratic lawmakers have led much of the criticism, focusing on constitutional concerns and possible resource-driven motives. Senator Tim Kaine called it "an unauthorized military attack on Venezuela" that bypasses Congress, saying that he will force a Senate vote next week on a resolution to constrain the president's war powers. "President Trump's unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro — however terrible he is — is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere," Kaine said.

The Senate vote on the War Powers Resolution is expected as early as Tuesday, following a mandatory briefing by administration officials.

Democratic senator Andy Kim said the administration had misled Congress. "Administration officials lied to Congress about goals in Venezuela. This operation sends a horrible and disturbing signal that targeting a head of state is acceptable US policy, violating our Constitution's war powers provisions and setting a dangerous precedent," said Kim.

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mark Pocan, and Senator Jeff Merkley also argued that the operation was driven by oil interests rather than national security. Ocasio-Cortez described it as a "terrifying precedent" for regime change under the mask of drug charges, while Pocan and Merkley emphasized that the move ignores the will of the American people to prioritize "might over right" for the sake of securing foreign resources.

Democratic Representative Jim McGovern described the strikes as illegal. "The Trump administration has been lying to Congress and the American people while carrying out illegal attacks. This is an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela — the Constitution is clear: only Congress can declare war, and we must say no to an illegal war."

Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego also called it an illegal war. "This war is illegal; it's embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in one day. There is no justification for the United States to be at war with Venezuela — I lived through the consequences of an illegal war sold to the American people on lies," he said.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the move reckless. "This is reckless and without a plan — Trump's decision to capture Maduro bypasses Congress entirely, risking American lives and international stability without any strategy beyond bravado."

In contrast, most Republican lawmakers largely applauded the operation as a decisive step against narco-terrorism and in the US interests, while some Republican lawmakers also raised objections. Representative Thomas Massie questioned the legal foundation: "If the operation were constitutionally sound, authorities would not reference a 1934 firearm law in relation to the arrest of a foreign leader and his wife. The president has no authority to launch military action without congressional authorization — this is a clear violation."

Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized foreign interventions. "Regime change, funding foreign wars and American's tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes ... is what has most Americans furious. If US military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives, then why aren't we doing the same with Mexican cartels?" she posted.

Republican Senator Mike Lee initially sought clarification on authorization. "I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or congressional authorization. This raises serious questions about the legal basis for military strikes on Venezuela."

Ana Navarro, a conservative political commentator, criticized suggestions that the US should manage Venezuela, as Trump had asserted. "This is insane. We have to reject any effort by Donald Trump to run Venezuela — claiming the US will 'manage' another country is a severe infringement on sovereignty and completely unhinged."

Maduro and Flores arrived later on Saturday in New York aboard a US aircraft, landing at Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh before transferring to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for federal processing.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, briefed on detention plans, called the capture "an act of war and a violation of federal and international law".

Online discussions echoed politicians' concerns. On Reddit, user Flash_ina_pan wrote: "As long as there's oil that Chevron, Exxon and their ilk don't have access to, war is always on the table. The whole 'drug trafficking' and 'human rights' narrative is just a PR layer to mask the fact that this is a resources grab."

User Agloe_Dreams commented: "Profits come at the cost of the people. Ensuring profits requires ensuring control. Going to war with someone so you can set up your own profitable dictatorship has, historically speaking, not worked out great at ALL for anyone."

On X, @ZoeAlexandros posted: "The drug trafficking charges are a convenient front for a textbook regime change. If we actually cared about drug flows, we wouldn't be cozying up to narco-states when it suits our interests. This is about establishing a foothold, period."

@GeopoliAnalyst, another user, wrote: "Trump just said the quiet part loud: 'We're going to get the oil flowing.' This was never about democracy. It's about securing the world's largest oil reserves for US firms. Absolute Resolve is just another resource war dressed up in the flag."

YouTube comments included similar views. @CommonSenseCynic wrote: "It's the 2026 version of 'weapons of mass destruction'. The DEA warrant is just a convenient legal wrapper for a military coup. If it were about drugs, they'd start with the cartels we actually share a border with, not a country with the largest oil reserves."

yifanxu@chinadailyusa.com