President Donald Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela will pose a fresh test of his ability to hold together a restive Republican coalition during a challenging election year.
President Donald Trump’s military operation in Venezuela presents a new test of his ability to maintain unity within a restive Republican Party during a challenging election year.
While most Republicans initially backed Trump following the dramatic US mission that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and brought him to the United States to face criminal charges, there were signs of unease within the party.
In particular, Trump’s remarks about the U.S. positioning itself to “run” Venezuela have sparked concerns that he is departing from the “America First” approach that has long set him apart from traditional Republicans and fuelled his political rise.
“This is the same Washington playbook that we are so sick and tired of that doesn’t serve the American people, but actually serves the big corporations, the banks and the oil executives,” said outgoing GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a former Trump ally, during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday.
Some moderates expressed similar concerns. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, one of the most vulnerable Republicans ahead of the November midterms, said in a statement, “the only country that the United States of America should be ‘running’ is the United States of America.”
These reactions highlight the delicate balance Trump must navigate with fellow Republicans as the party enters an election year where it risks losing control of Congress. While Trump remains the dominant figure in the GOP, his previously unchallenged influence has faced unusual tests in recent months. Various Republican blocs have pressured him to release the Jeffrey Epstein files or address concerns about affordability more seriously.
Few issues, however, strike at the core of Trump’s political identity as much as avoiding U.S. involvement in prolonged foreign conflicts at the expense of domestic priorities. During a 2016 Republican presidential debate, he famously described the Iraq War as a “big, fat mistake.”
By Saturday, Trump said he was “not afraid of boots on the ground” if that was deemed necessary, and he framed his actions in Venezuela as steps that are grounded in prioritizing the safety and security of Americans. As he articulated an aggressive vision of U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, he told reporters it was important to “surround” the U.S. with “good neighbors.”
His comments about revitalizing the oil industry in Venezuela are in line with some of the earliest critiques he made of the handling of the Iraq War. During a 2013 speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said the U.S. should “take” oil from Iraq and “pay ourselves back.”
Amid some of the pushback about the U.S. taking expansive responsibility for managing Venezuela, Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday suggested a more limited role. He said that Washington would not handle day-to-day governance of the South American country other than enforcing an existing “oil quarantine” on Venezuela.
It is not clear that any forceful, organized opposition to Trump’s Venezuela policy is emerging within the GOP. Instead, many lawmakers appear to be giving the Republican administration some room and, at most, offer some warnings.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a potentially challenging reelection campaign this year, called Maduro a “narco-terrorist and international drug trafficker” who should stand trial even, as she said “Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who often criticizes military interventions, did not specifically oppose Trump’s actions even as he wrote on X that “time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who has clashed with Trump and is not seeking reelection this year, said Maduro was a “thug” and that Trump has “broad constitutional authority and long historical precedent for the limited use of military force.”
With inputs from agencies
End of Article
