Donald Trump ran for reelection with the slogan of "America First" and a promise to end costly foreign wars, but as the new year kicked off, he seemed to break that promise in a major way with his military operation in Venezuela. In an analysis of the fallout, Politico found that even the MAGA movement's "most committed America Firsters have fallen in line behind Trump’s foray into overseas interventionism."
By comparison, the analysis noted that Trump's continued support of Israel in its campaign in Gaza and his strike on Iranian nuclear bases drew considerable criticism from prominent MAGA faithfuls, like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk, who criticized the president for continuing to remain involved in overseas conflicts. Critique of the Venezuela operation, meanwhile, "has mostly been restricted to relatively marginal figures within MAGA," like Candace Owens and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Politico sorted the defenses of Trump's Venezuela operation broadly into four categories. The first of them involves the claim that the US is a "good cop" in this scenario, not capturing President Nicolás Maduro in order to enact regime change, but instead to have him stand trial in the US for drug trafficking. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the operation "a law enforcement function," and Vice President JD Vance took to X to argue, "You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas."
The second line of defense, according to Politico, can be summed up as "hemispheric defense," the idea that an operation in Venezuela is more defensible than actions in Iran or Nigeria because it's much closer to the US and has a more direct bearing on American interests and security.
"That argument, which has gained traction both inside the admin and with Trump’s outside allies in Washington, hinges on Trump’s long-standing claim that the U.S. is the pre-eminent power in the Western hemisphere — meaning that any action it takes in the hemisphere is, almost by definition, 'America First,'" Politico explained.
Another line of defense, according to Politico, comes from elements of the MAGA base who accept that the Venezuela operation was about regime change and argue that it was done well, highlighting one pro-MAGA X account which boasted that "Trump captured Nicolas Maduro while we were sleeping overnight with zero casualties," in contrast to George W. Bush, who it said "needed 170,000 troops that led to over 4,400 US military casualties and an 8-year war in order to capture Saddam Hussein."
"At this point, though, that claim seems premature," Politico explained. "Now three days after the operation, the Trump administration has not laid out a clear vision of its plans to 'run' Venezuela, and Trump himself has said that the U.S. is 'not afraid of boots on the ground.' If Dubya offers a cautionary tale, it might be about the perils of declaring victory in a self-generated crisis before the crisis is actual over."
The final line of defense Politico highlighted was the most blunt, involving the argument that "If Trump can impose his will on a weaker country like Venezuela, why shouldn’t he?" This line came from the likes of conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who called himself “an unapologetic American Chauvinist” who is eager to see “America... rule over this hemisphere and exert its power for the good of our people.” Vance offered "a slightly more sophisticated version of this argument," claiming that the US was within its rights to attack Venezuela due to it previously nationalizing American oil fields in the country over 20 years ago.