The Venezuela Intervention: How 'America First' Became 'America Runs the World'

The Facts: A Military Operation That Divided a Political Movement

President Donald Trump has executed a dramatic military operation in Venezuela resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, who now faces criminal charges in New York. This intervention represents a significant departure from the anti-interventionist “America First” platform that defined Trump’s political movement for nearly a decade. The operation itself appears to have been successfully carried out from a tactical perspective, but the aftermath has exposed deep fissures within the Republican Party and the broader MAGA movement.

The controversy centers around Trump’s statement that the United States would “run” Venezuela following the intervention, a claim that his administration has since attempted to walk back. Secretary of State Marco Rubio notably distanced himself from this language during Sunday news show appearances, emphasizing that American troops were no longer on the ground. This discrepancy between the President’s rhetoric and his administration’s messaging has created confusion and concern among Trump’s base, who voted for him specifically to end America’s role as global policeman.

The operation has drawn both praise and criticism from prominent Republicans and conservative voices. Representative Kevin Kiley of California defended the action as “consistent with a foreign policy that is aimed first and foremost to protect the interests of the United States.” Meanwhile, influential figures like Candace Owens have condemned the intervention as another “hostile takeover of a country” orchestrated by “globalist psychopaths,” drawing parallels to U.S. actions in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The Context: From Campaign Promise to Presidential Action

Trump’s political ascent was built significantly on criticizing the foreign policy failures of both Republican and Democratic administrations. He consistently railed against the Iraq War and nation-building experiments, positioning himself as the candidate who would stop “endless wars” and focus American resources domestically. The “America First” banner became synonymous with skepticism toward foreign entanglements and a commitment to putting American interests above global policing.

This context makes the Venezuela intervention particularly significant. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War two decades ago, the Trump administration made relatively little effort to build public consensus or clearly articulate the justification for military action beforehand. The operation appears to have been executed with minimal public discussion or congressional debate, raising serious questions about democratic accountability and the proper role of executive power in military interventions.

Equally concerning is the apparent motivation shift. While Trump has long accused Venezuela and other Latin American nations of sending drugs and criminals to the United States, the intervention revealed a new justification: securing Venezuelan oil resources for American companies. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky explicitly called this out, stating “VENEZUELA is not about drugs; it’s about OIL and REGIME CHANGE. This is not what we voted for.”

Opinion: The Betrayal of Principle and the Erosion of Trust

What we are witnessing is nothing short of a fundamental betrayal of the principles that millions of Americans believed they were supporting when they voted for Donald Trump. The “America First” movement was supposed to represent a break from the interventionist foreign policy establishment that has cost America trillions of dollars and thousands of lives over the past two decades. Instead, we see the same patterns emerging: regime change justified by shifting rationales, minimal public debate, and vague promises of quick victories.

When a president campaigns on ending foreign entanglements but then claims the authority to “run” another country, we have entered dangerous constitutional and moral territory. The framers of our Constitution established careful checks and balances precisely to prevent exactly this kind of executive overreach. They understood that concentrated power to start wars and occupy nations inevitably leads to abuse and the erosion of liberty both abroad and at home.

The most disturbing aspect of this intervention is how quickly principles are abandoned when power is concentrated. Stephen Bannon, a prominent Trump ally, expressed the confusion many supporters feel, asking whether this action was “harkening back to our fiasco in Iraq under Bush.” When even loyalists question whether their movement has become what it opposed, we must recognize the profound ideological corruption taking place.

The Slippery Slope of Hemispheric Dominance

Defenders of the intervention, like Vice President JD Vance, argue that “great powers don’t act like that” when confronted with threats in their hemisphere. This rhetoric should alarm anyone who values national sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. The notion that proximity justifies military action creates a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify interventions throughout Latin America whenever American interests are potentially “implicated.”

Robert Axson, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, acknowledges that some might question whether the incursion contradicts Trump’s isolationist message but argues that “being America First and being very restrained in willingness to risk American service members is certainly appropriate, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to put your head in the sand and do nothing.” This reasoning illustrates the slippery slope of interventionism – once you accept the principle that America must act as hemispheric policeman, every situation becomes a potential justification for military action.

What’s particularly troubling is the administration’s apparent failure to articulate a clear exit strategy or define what success looks like. Trump’s dismissive comment to The Atlantic that “rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now” demonstrates a concerning casualness about the profound responsibility of removing a foreign government and determining the future of an entire nation.

The Constitutional and Moral Implications

Marjorie Taylor Greene, despite her controversial history, raised a crucial point when she noted that this intervention follows “the same Washington playbook that we are so sick and tired of that doesn’t serve the American people.” Whether one agrees with her politics or not, her observation highlights how entrenched the interventionist mindset remains in Washington, regardless of which party or faction holds power.

The constitutional implications are equally grave. The Founders carefully distributed war powers between Congress and the executive for good reason: they feared concentrated power to start conflicts. While recent administrations of both parties have expanded executive war powers, this intervention represents another step toward normalizing military action without meaningful congressional authorization or public debate.

Morally, the claim that America should “run” another nation represents a profound arrogance that contradicts basic principles of self-determination and national sovereignty. However flawed Venezuela’s government may be, the Venezuelan people have the right to determine their own future. American military power should not be used to impose governments or economic systems on other nations, no matter how compelling the short-term justification might appear.

Conclusion: Reclaiming America’s Soul

This Venezuela intervention represents more than just a policy disagreement – it strikes at the heart of what America stands for as a nation. Are we a republic that respects the sovereignty of other nations and exercises military power with restraint and clear constitutional authorization? Or have we become an empire that intervenes wherever our perceived interests dictate, with little regard for international law, democratic principles, or our own founding values?

The division within the Republican Party over this action is actually a healthy sign – it shows that principle still matters to many conservatives. The critics from Candace Owens to Thomas Massie deserve credit for speaking truth to power, reminding us that political loyalty should never supersede commitment to foundational principles.

America’s greatness has never derived from our ability to dominate other nations but from our commitment to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law – both at home and abroad. If we abandon these principles for short-term gains or vague notions of hemispheric dominance, we lose what makes America truly exceptional. The Venezuela intervention should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans who believe in limited government, constitutional principles, and a foreign policy of restraint rather than empire.