Iran poses a far more dangerous military test for the US than Venezuela, experts warn
Fresh off a successful operation in Venezuela, the U.S. is weighing its options as Iran’s leadership launches a violent crackdown on anti-government protesters — raising questions about whether similar military pressure could be applied to Tehran, Iran.
In Caracas, Venezuela, U.S. special operators moved quickly to capture Nicolás Maduro. In Tehran, Iran, any comparable effort would unfold against a state with greater military depth and the ability to strike back well beyond its borders.
“Thinking of this as an operation, as in the case of Venezuela or the nuclear program, is the wrong framing,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital. “This has to be seen as a campaign.”
Iran is a larger, more capable military power than Venezuela, with security forces designed to protect the regime from both foreign attack and internal unrest. Power is distributed across clerical institutions, security services and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — a structure built to survive the loss of individual leaders rather than collapse with them.
IRAN GOES DARK AS REGIME UNLEASHES FORCE, CYBER TOOLS TO CRUSH PROTESTS
“Musical chairs at the top is highly unlikely to work in Iran,” Taleblu said.
He pointed to the central role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which he described as “the tip of the spear of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” warning that removing a single figure would leave a hardened security apparatus intact — and potentially more dangerous.
That structure is backed by a military capability Venezuela never possessed: a resilient missile force that gives Iran credible options for retaliation if it believes the regime itself is under threat.
US RAID IN VENEZUELA SIGNALS DETERRENCE TO ADVERSARIES ON THREE FRONTS, EXPERTS SAY
“The retaliatory capability of the Islamic Republic is still fairly intact, which is their missile program,” Taleblu said.
During heavy Israeli strikes in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, Iran’s missile force was degraded but not eliminated. While air defenses and launch infrastructure were damaged, Tehran, Iran, retains a significant inventory of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and the ability to disperse and fire them from mobile launchers.
Analysts say the conflict reinforced Iran’s reliance on missiles as its primary deterrent, even as it accepted that air defenses could be penetrated. During the war, Israel degraded Iran’s air defenses while the U.S. moved in to strike its nuclear facilities.
Iran’s armed forces also are far larger than Venezuela’s, with nearly 1 million active and reserve personnel compared with roughly 120,000 troops in Venezuela — a disparity that underscores the very different military environments U.S. planners would face.
Iran’s antagonism toward the United States is rooted in the ideology of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which cast opposition to Western influence — particularly the U.S. and Israel — as a core principle of the state. Venezuela’s clashes with Washington, by contrast, largely have been driven by political power, sanctions and control over oil revenues, rather than a revolutionary ideology aimed at opposing Western society itself.
In Venezuela, Trump administration officials framed the operation not as regime change, but as a limited action to advance U.S. interests — prosecuting Maduro on drug trafficking charges and securing leverage over the country’s oil sector. After Maduro’s capture, Trump allowed Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume power on an interim basis and expressed doubt that opposition leader María Machado had sufficient internal support to govern.
In Iran, by contrast, any military action would be interpreted as a direct challenge to the regime itself.
Unlike Venezuela, where the state apparatus remained intact after Maduro’s removal, targeting Iran’s leadership risks expanding the mission from a narrow strike into a broader campaign against the regime’s security forces.
“You could conduct an attack against the leadership, including the supreme leader, but that raises lots of questions about who comes next,” Seth Jones, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Pentagon official, told Fox News Digital.
“Is it Khamenei’s son? Is it Sadegh Larijani? Is it Hassan Khameini?” Jones said, referring to figures often discussed as potential successors. “Or do you start to look at other options?”
That uncertainty, Jones said, is what turns a leadership-targeting strike into a far broader and riskier proposition.
TRUMP SIGNALS LONG ROAD AHEAD IN VENEZUELA IN HIS BOLDEST INTERVENTIONIST MOVE YET
“The more this starts to be not just the removal of a leader, but regime change, the more it becomes an expansive targeting problem,” Jones said.
Jones added that the core challenge for U.S. planners is not whether military force could be used, but what political objective it would serve.
“The big question then becomes what’s the objective — not just militarily, but what’s the political objective in Iran and how does that translate into what types of military resources you need?” he said.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Such an expansion, Jones warned, would raise the risk of a prolonged and destabilizing conflict in a country of Iran’s size and complexity.
“The more you start looking at regime change and using military force for that, the more messy the situation in Iran could get,” Jones said. “It’s really hard to social engineer from the outside.”
Republicans, Democrats say no to US military strike against Iran as Trump mulls action: poll
Democrats and Republicans are united in opposing U.S. military strikes against Iran to retaliate for the killing of protesters amid a wave of massive demonstrations against the Iranian government in recent weeks, according to a new national poll.
Seventy percent of voters questioned in a new Quinnipiac University survey said they think the U.S. should not get involved militarily in Iran, with 18% saying the U.S. should take military action.
The vast majority of Independents (80%-11%) and Democrats (79%-7%), as well as a majority of Republicans (53%-35%) said the U.S. should not get involved if protesters in Iran are killed while demonstrating against the regime.
The poll, conducted Jan. 9–12, comes as President Donald Trump has turned up the heat on the regime in Tehran, threatening strikes on Iran if its forces continue to kill demonstrators.
HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING, ANALYSIS ON IRAN PROTESTS
The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency announced Tuesday that nearly 2,000 people have been killed in the protests. Other reports say the death toll is over 3,000, with the real number likely to be even higher.
The protests against Iran’s dire economic conditions, which have rapidly escalated in recent days, are seen as some of the most violent since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that installed the current system of clerical rule.
IRAN REGIME FACES ‘BEGINNING OF THE END’ AS EXILED CROWN PRINCE SEES ‘GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY’
Trump took to social media earlier this week, urging “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS.”
The president also said that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” and apparently pointing to Iranian authorities, he warned, “They will pay a big price.”
Pointing to the possibility of Iranian authorities executing some of the protesters, Trump said in a CBS News interview this week, “If they do such a thing, we will take very strong action.”
And the White House confirmed on Monday that Trump was weighing whether to bomb Iran in reaction to the crackdown.
But seven in 10 questioned in the poll said that, in general, a president should first receive congressional approval before deciding to take military action against another country.
SOME US MILITARY PERSONNEL TOLD TO LEAVE MIDDLE EAST BASES, US OFFICIAL CONFIRMS
“Talk of the U.S. military potentially intervening in Iran’s internal chaos gets a vigorous thumbs down, while voters signal congressional approval should be a backstop against military involvement in any foreign crisis,” Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said.
But there’s a partisan divide, with 95% of Democrats and 78% of Independents saying a president should first receive approval from Congress, but Republicans, by a 54%-35% margin, saying congressional approval is not needed.
Trump last June ordered U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities as part of Operation Midnight Hammer, amid fighting between Tehran and Israel.
Voters are also divided on Trump’s move earlier this month to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and bring them to the U.S. to face drug trafficking charges. Forty-seven percent supported the president’s decision, with 45% opposed.
And there was an expected partisan divide, with 85% of Republicans supporting the military action to capture Maduro, with 79% of Democrats opposed. Independents were divided.
HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLLING
More than half of voters (57%) opposed the U.S. running Venezuela until Washington is satisfied that the government there will operate the way the U.S. wants it to. Nearly three-quarters (73%) said they opposed sending U.S. ground troops to Venezuela and 55% opposed the U.S. taking over the South American country’s oil sales.
“Voters are divided on the merits of overthrowing Maduro. And while split on whether in the long run the people of Venezuela will be better off, they strongly disapprove of America’s temporary domain over Venezuela and are heartily against putting U.S. troops on the ground,” Malloy noted.
Trump has also turned up the volume in his efforts to acquire Greenland from Denmark.
“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security,” the president argued in a social media post Wednesday.
Trump’s push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland is causing tension with Denmark and other NATO allies who insist that the semiautonomous Danish territory should determine its own future.
Trump officials are openly considering all options, including military force, to take Greenland, spurring bipartisan opposition from some in Congress.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
According to the poll, 86% of voters said they would oppose military action to take over Greenland. And by a 55%-37% margin, voters said they opposed trying to buy Greenland.
But there’s a stark political divide, with more than two-thirds of Republicans supporting efforts to buy or capture Greenland.
Senate GOP moves to block Dems’ war powers push, preserve Trump’s authority in rare move
Senate Republicans are mulling an arcane move that, if successful, would kill the bipartisan push to rein in President Donald Trump’s war authority in Venezuela.
The Senate is a chamber that lives and dies by procedure. It guides how bills are considered and how senators speak on the floor, and Republicans hope that a procedure once used by Senate Democrats will work in their favor to nullify Sen. Tim Kaine’s, D-Va., war powers resolution.
Republicans are considering making a point of order to table the resolution and argue that because there are no troops on the ground in Venezuela, nor active combat involving U.S. forces, Kaine’s bid is moot.
TRUMP RIPS INTO GOP DEFECTORS AS ‘REAL LOSERS’ AS SENATE READIES FOR FINAL VOTE
But whether Republicans can muster support to kill the resolution with the rare move remains to be seen. Five Senate Republicans broke ranks to advance the war powers push last week, and the point of order can pass or fail by a simple 50-vote majority.
When asked if the votes were there to effectively turn off the bipartisan push, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said, “Uncertain.”
Still, Thune made the case that the resolution was likely not germane and able to be turned off, because no actual fighting was happening in Venezuela.
TRUMP BLASTS GOP WAR POWERS DEFECTORS, SAYS THEY ‘SHOULD NEVER BE ELECTED TO OFFICE AGAIN’
“I think that it’s pretty clear, in my view at least, that there are no hostilities that exist today, which, as I’ve suggested before, to me at least means that shouldn’t be accorded privilege on the floor, that expedited consideration on the floor for something that doesn’t exist at the moment,” Thune said. “But nevertheless it’s all about the votes.”
Senate Democrats made the same argument successfully in 2024 against a war powers resolution from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. That push was geared toward ending U.S. involvement with the operation of a floating pier off the coast of Gaza.
Kaine’s resolution is more forward-looking, however, and if passed, would require that Congress have oversight authority over future military action in Venezuela. The Trump administration has reiterated that there are no boots on the ground in the country and made assurances to several Senate Republicans that no future military action is planned after the success of Operation Absolute Resolve.
RUBIO LAYS OUT THREE-PHASE PLAN FOR VENEZUELA AFTER MADURO: ‘NOT JUST WINGING IT’
Whether Republicans can actually kill the resolution before it ever reaches a final vote and possibly a lengthy marathon amendment process known as a “vote-a-rama,” will ultimately be a test of Senate GOP leadership’s and the White House’s lobbying abilities to flip the five Republicans who pushed back against Trump.
But Trump’s repeated attacks against the cohort of Republicans who sided with Senate Democrats could backfire and see the resolution pass.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Todd Young, R-Indiana, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., will all be under a microscope on Wednesday.
Collins reaffirmed on Tuesday that she was still in favor of the war powers resolution, and Paul, who is a co-sponsor of the legislation, is unlikely to budge.
A source told Fox News Digital that Hawley, however, flipped his position on the matter and would support the point of order after getting assurances from Trump officials that no boots would be on the ground in the country.
Golf legend Greg Norman praises Trump for US action in Venezuela: ‘I applaud it’
Legendary pro golfer Greg Norman on Wednesday praised President Donald Trump for the U.S. action in Venezuela that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Norman, the two-time British Open champion and former LIV Golf CEO, spoke to “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy in Florida and had glowing remarks about how the U.S. handled the situation in the South American country.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
“He’s true to his word,” Norman said. “And I said this during his first term, I’ve known quite a few presidents but he’s the first president I’ve spent time with that has true stars and stripes flowing through his blood.
“So, what he did in Venezuela, I applaud it. That timing, the execution of it just showed the pure strength and the might and the will of the United States to protect their hemisphere and they should protect their backyard.”
PRO GOLFER JHONATTAN VEGAS WEIGHS IN AFTER TRUMP ORDERS ‘LARGE SCALE STRIKE’ IN VENEZUELA
Trump announced on Jan. 3 that U.S. special forces conducted a “large-scale strike” against Caracas, and seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Both were taken to New York and appeared in a Manhattan federal court Jan. 5 on drug charges, where they each pleaded not guilty.
The raid came after months of pressure on Venezuela and more than two dozen strikes in Latin American waters against alleged drug traffickers as part of Trump’s effort to crack down on the influx of drugs into the U.S.
The Trump administration routinely stated that it did not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state and said he was the leader of a drug cartel. Likewise, Trump said in December 2025 he believed it would be “smart” for Maduro to step down.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Trump administration has justified seizing Maduro as a “law enforcement” operation, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said congressional approval wasn’t necessary since the operation didn’t amount to an “invasion.”
What the alleged ‘sonic weapon’ used in Venezuela may actually have been
Claims that a mysterious “sonic weapon” was used in Venezuela have fueled speculation about exotic U.S. military technology and its potential effects on the human body.
One eyewitness account from a Venezuelan guard, shared on social media by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, claimed the weapon brought Venezuelan and Cuban security forces to their knees, “bleeding through their nose” and vomiting blood.
While the Trump administration has not confirmed what weapon, if any, may have been used, defense experts point to a well-known acoustic device that has been in use for years.
US USED SONIC WEAPON ON VENEZUELAN TROOPS, REPORT SHARED BY LEAVITT CLAIMS
Known as a long-range acoustic device (LRAD), it’s been described as the “voice of God,” according to Mark Cancian, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The device deploys a directed, short-range “cone of sound.”
“It’s not like a microphone, you know, where everybody’s neighborhood, it’s only within this cone,” said Cancian.
U.S. operators may have deployed it as they were landing on the ground in Caracas, Venezuela, as a way to disorient security forces and warn them to drop their weapons.
LRADs can project spoken commands at intense volumes or emit a loud, piercing tone designed to get attention and deter movement. At close range, the sound can be painful and disorienting, and in extreme cases can damage hearing or rupture eardrums, but the devices are not designed to cause lasting physical harm.
U.S. forces used them for crowd control in Iraq when Iraqis got too close to U.S. military installments, according to Cancian.
The devices can reach up to 140 decibels of sound. The intensity drops quickly with distance and angle. This is why operators can stand nearby but outside the beam.
US MILITARY DETAILS TIMELINE OF OPERATION TO CAPTURE MADURO, REVEALING MORE THAN 150 AIRCRAFT INVOLVED
Other defense analysts say the account raises questions that go beyond conventional acoustic devices.
For decades, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has studied nonlethal technologies intended to temporarily incapacitate adversaries without causing permanent injury. Publicly available research has explored acoustic and electromagnetic effects designed to overwhelm the senses, disrupt balance or motor control, and render targets briefly unable to fight or maneuver.
Can Kasapoglu, a defense analyst at the Hudson Institute, said such research has fueled speculation about more advanced incapacitation systems, but stressed there is no public evidence any experimental DARPA technology was used in Venezuela.
“There are some non-lethal technologies that DARPA has been working on, including acoustic weapon systems, sound waves, and also some neurological weapon systems that do not kill, but cause an unbearable sensation that you feel that you simply become inoperable in the battlefield,” he said.
While the symptoms described in the post shared by Leavitt are unverified, “they align closely with examples of DARPA research.”
The White House and Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition to the reported sound offense, the U.S. launched a cyberattack that knocked out communications systems as operators were landing in Caracas, Venezuela.
“It was dark, the lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have, it was dark, and it was deadly,” Trump previously said.
“We were on guard, but suddenly all our radar systems shut down without any explanation,” the local guard said in the account shared by Leavitt. “The next thing we saw were drones, a lot of drones, flying over our positions. We didn’t know how to react.”
SEVEN US SERVICE MEMBERS INJURED IN VENEZUELA RAID TO CAPTURE MADURO, OFFICIAL SAYS
Once operators were on the ground, “At one point, they launched something; I don’t know how to describe it,” he said. “It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside.”
The effects were extreme, according to the guard.
“We all started bleeding from the nose,” he said. “Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move. We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon — or whatever it was.”
The physical effects described by the guard go well beyond what experts say LRADs are known to cause.
Vomiting blood, in particular, is not a typical reaction to acoustic exposure, raising questions about whether the account exaggerates the effects, misattributes their cause, or reflects a different factor entirely.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Experts caution that while directional acoustic devices are real and widely used, there is no publicly known “sonic weapon” capable of producing the extreme injuries described — and no official confirmation that any such system was used in Venezuela.
Venezuela’s interior minister Diosdado Cabello said 100 people were killed in the Maduro operation. Cuba has said 32 members of its security forces, which were guarding Maduro, were killed in the operation.
Seven U.S. service members were injured in the operation, but none were killed.
Dem senators ripped for reversing Venezuela stance after Trump captured Maduro: ‘Politics at its worst’
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has been criticized over her shifting stance on Venezuela and its fallen president Nicolás Maduro after she supported military action to take out Maduro and “delegitimizing” the Venezuelan government in 2019, but condemned the Trump administration for trying “to ‘run’ another country.”
In 2019, when running for president, Klobuchar advocated for using the military to remove Maduro and help establish a democracy in Venezuela, saying, “I’m also glad that we’re trying to push Maduro out. But the answer here is to make sure that we are working with our allies, pushing for democracy and some kind of a negotiated agreement. Military should always be on the table.”
Meanwhile, on another occasion in 2019, Klobuchar again endorsed American involvement in bringing democracy to Venezuela, saying she, “of course supported bringing in the new president and delegitimizing the Maduro government,” and “You always leave things on the table,” when asked about U.S. intervention.
LOOMING WAR POWERS SENATE VOTE RAMPS UP PRESSURE ON HAWLEY AFTER MAGA BACKLASH
“Democrats like Klobuchar and Schumer spent years demanding the removal of dictator Nicolás Maduro. Now that President Trump has actually done it, they suddenly oppose the outcome. The Democratic Party has entered the terminal phase of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” said Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn.
“Washington politics at its worst, says one thing to her pals in the media but turns her back on our brave military after they put their lives on the line,” added “Ruthless” podcast host John Ashbrook.
“It’s sad but not surprising that a committed ideologue like Amy Klobuchar is unable to give credit where credit is due for President Trump’s removal of Nicolás Maduro. The socialist regime of Venezuela drove one of the most energy-rich countries in the world into ruin, his citizens into poverty and served as a Western Hemisphere stalking horse for China, Iran, Russia and others who wish us harm,” said longtime Republican strategist Colin Reed. “Not only do Venezuelans have a renewed sense of hope, but America is stronger on the world stage. Global politics used to stop at the water’s edge, but for Amy Klobuchar, partisan politics is priority one.”
HOUSE REPUBLICANS RIP SENATE WAR POWERS PUSH AS ‘POLITICAL THEATER’ AFTER TRUMP’S VENEZUELA RAID
The White House has called out a lengthy list of other high-profile Senate Democrats besides Klobuchar for allegedly once demanding Maduro’s capture but now “mourn[ing] his capture.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was among those slammed by the White House for going from blasting Trump for failing to dislodge a “more powerful” and “more entrenched” Maduro to calling Trump’s Maduro arrest “reckless” and stoking fear about consequences.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., according to Trump, went from pledging sustained support to help Venezuelans rebuild what has been lost under Maduro to criticizing Trump’s unilateral use of military force and warning about intervention.
Chris Van Hollen is described by the White House as moving from urging the U.S. to “ratchet up the pressure” for a negotiated transition to labeling any move to replace Maduro an “illegal act of war.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to Klobuchar for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.
Trump signals long road ahead in Venezuela in his boldest interventionist move yet
President Donald Trump is setting the stage for the U.S. to be involved in overseeing Venezuela for a significant period of time, after conducting strikes and capturing dictator Nicolás Maduro and labeling himself “acting” president of Venezuela.
The move marks his boldest interventionist move yet — a foreign policy approach by which one country intervenes in another state’s affairs — and follows other major military operations from the Trump administration, including strikes in Syria in December 2025 against Islamic State operatives after an ambush against U.S. troops there, and strikes in June 2025 against the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
Trump told The New York Times in an interview that was published Wednesday that “only time will tell” how long the U.S. will be running Venezuela, but said it would be “much longer” than a year.
Additionally, Trump announced recently that Venezuela’s interim government would hand over up to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S. and that the oil would be sold “immediately.”
TRUMP DISCUSSES EXPANSION OF DRUG CARTEL CRACKDOWN, ISSUES GRIM WARNING TO IRAN
“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump told the Times. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”
Likewise, Trump shared a doctored image that looked like a Wikipedia page that identified him as “Acting President of Venezuela” since January 2026.
Previous interventionist actions the U.S. has taken include launching an invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks Afghanistan-based al Qaeda conducted against the U.S., and an invasion of Iraq in 2003 that led to the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. In both cases, the U.S. remained in prolonged occupations there.
The language the Trump administration is using now focusing on illegal migration is different than what was used during the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, which focused on democracy-building and promoting freedom, Katherine Thompson, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital.
US RAID IN VENEZUELA SIGNALS DETERRENCE TO ADVERSARIES ON THREE FRONTS, EXPERTS SAY
“But the pathway to achieve those things, I don’t see, like, a broad differentiation from the things that we did before,” Thompson told Fox News Digital.
Thompson said that she doesn’t see how the Trump administration’s goals could be completed without small rotational deployments from U.S. forces to provide security, particularly in the event that the U.S. reopens its Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela.
“I don’t see how we’re going to have a team there without at least some small deployment of rotational forces to achieve security of our own personnel,” Thompson said.
So far, no U.S. troops are on the ground in Venezuela, and the Senate advanced a War Powers resolution Thursday that, if passed, would bar using U.S. forces within or against Venezuela without Congress’ approval.
TRUMP ADMIN SAYS MADURO CAPTURE REINFORCES ALIEN ENEMIES ACT REMOVALS
When asked by Fox News Digital about whether Trump’s “Acting President of Venezuela” post was shared jokingly and what it indicates about how long the U.S. will be involved in running Venezuela, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Fox News Digital: “President Trump will be the greatest President for the American and Venezuelan people in history. Congratulations, world!”
Although Trump has blasted previous administrations for actions in the Middle East and vowed he would bring an end to “endless wars” while ushering in an “America First” agenda prioritizing U.S. interests, Democrats warned that the U.S. may be involving itself in another complicated conflict.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed that the U.S. is on the path to another “endless war.”
“The very thing that Donald Trump campaigned against over and over and over again was no more endless wars,” Schumer said in an interview with ABC News Jan. 4. “And, right now, we’re headed right into one with no barriers, with no discussion.”
SEN JEAN SHAHEEN: MADURO IS GONE, BUT THE SAME POWER STRUCTURES REMAIN IN VENEZUELA
Trump announced on Jan. 3 that U.S. special forces conducted a “large-scale strike” against Caracas, and seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Both were taken to New York and appeared in a Manhattan federal court Jan. 5 on drug charges, where they each pleaded not guilty.
The raid came after months of pressure on Venezuela and more than two dozen strikes in Latin American waters against alleged drug traffickers as part of Trump’s effort to crack down on the influx of drugs into the U.S.
The Trump administration routinely stated that it did not recognize Maduro as a legitimate head of state and said he was the leader of a drug cartel. Likewise, Trump said in December 2025 he believed it would be “smart” for Maduro to step down.
The Trump administration has justified seizing Maduro as a “law enforcement” operation, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said congressional approval wasn’t necessary since the operation didn’t amount to an “invasion.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
However, lawmakers primarily on the left have questioned the legality of the operation in Venezuela, which was conducted without Congress’ approval.
“This has been a profound constitutional failure,” the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement Jan. 3. “Congress — not the President — has the sole power to authorize war. Pursuing regime change without the consent of the American people is a reckless overreach and an abuse of power.”
Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation
The interim government in Venezuela has released at least four U.S. citizens who were imprisoned under President Nicolás Maduro‘s regime, Fox News confirmed.
The release marks the first known release of Americans in the South American country since the U.S. military completed an operation to capture Maduro, who is now facing federal drug trafficking charges in New York.
“We welcome the release of detained Americans in Venezuela,” a State Department official said Tuesday. “This is an important step in the right direction by the interim authorities.”
The release of American citizens was first reported by Bloomberg.
TRUMP SIGNS ORDER TO PROTECT VENEZUELA OIL REVENUE HELD IN US ACCOUNTS
President Donald Trump said Saturday that Venezuela had begun releasing political prisoners.
“Venezuela has started the process, in a BIG WAY, of releasing their political prisoners,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Thank you! I hope those prisoners will remember how lucky they got that the USA came along and did what had to be done.”
Venezuela’s interim government has reported that 116 prisoners have been released, although only about 70 have been verified by the non-governmental organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón, according to Bloomberg.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said prisoner releases would continue, according to the outlet.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FILES SEIZURE WARRANTS TARGETING SHIPS TIED TO VENEZUELAN OIL TRADE: REPORT
The U.S. government issued a new security alert Saturday urging Americans in Venezuela to leave the country immediately, citing security concerns and limited ability to provide emergency assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said.
“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should leave the country immediately,” the embassy said in the alert.
The warning pointed to reports of armed groups operating on Venezuelan roads.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Following the military operation, Trump suggested that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela for an extended period.
“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said.
Rand Paul says GOP colleagues ‘don’t give a s‑‑- about these people in the boats’: They ‘say they’re pro-life’
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., accused his “pro-life” Republican colleagues of not caring about the people killed in boat strikes near Venezuela who the Trump administration, without providing evidence, claims were trafficking fentanyl.
During an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” released on Tuesday, Paul said GOP lawmakers “don’t give a s‑‑-” about the people who died on the vessels, blasting his colleagues for not granting the presumption of innocence.
“I look at my colleagues who say they’re pro-life, and they value God’s inspiration in life, but they don’t give a s‑‑- about these people in the boats,” Paul said. “Are they terrible people in the boats? I don’t know. They’re probably poor people in Venezuela and Colombia.”
“I guess what I don’t feel connected to my Republican colleagues is that those lives don’t matter at all, and we just blow them up. And against all justice, and against all laws of war, all laws of just war, we have never blown up people who were shipwrecked,” he added, referring to the administration’s reported targeting and killing of survivors of initial strikes who were clinging to wreckage.
RAND PAUL SAYS TRUMP’S THREAT TO BOMB IRAN ‘IS NOT THE ANSWER’: NOT THE ‘JOB OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT’
The liberty-minded Republican said it is “against the military code of justice to do that.”
“We’re doing it and everybody just says, ‘Oh, well, they’re drug dealers,'” he said.
Paul criticized his fellow GOP lawmakers who have repeated the administration’s claims about the boats carrying fentanyl. He also took issue with colleagues who hold the position of, “Well, we’re at war with them. They’re committing war by bringing drugs into America.”
“They’re not even coming here,” Paul explained. “They’re going to these islands in the south part of the Caribbean. The cocaine — and it’s not fentanyl at all — the cocaine’s going to Europe.”
He emphasized that “those little boats can’t get here.”
“No one’s even asked this common question: Those boats have these four engines on them. They’re outboard boats. You can probably go about 100 miles before you have to refuel. Two thousand miles from us, they’d have to refuel 20 times to get here,” Paul said.
The senator accused the administration of conducting the boat strikes to create “a pretense and a false argument” ahead of the operation to attack Venezuela and arrest its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“It’s all been a pretense for arresting Maduro,” he said. “So, we have to set up the predicate. We got to show you we care about drugs.”
Paul helped the Senate advance a resolution last week that would limit Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks against Venezuela after the U.S. military’s recent move to strike the country and capture Maduro, which the Kentucky Republican said amounts to war. The Upper Chamber could pass the measure later this week, although it faces an uphill battle in the House despite some support from Republicans.
“I think bombing a capital and removing the head of state is, by all definitions, war,” Paul told reporters before the procedural vote last week. “Does this mean we have carte blanche that the president can make the decision any time, anywhere, to invade a foreign country and remove people that we’ve accused of a crime?”
SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK SCHIFF EFFORT TO FORCE RELEASE OF CARIBBEAN STRIKE FOOTAGE
The lawmaker has repeatedly criticized the administration’s boat strikes on alleged narco-terrorists in recent months, often raising concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people. The senator previously cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded on suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.
Paul said on “The Joe Rogan Experience” that he believes the administration might attack Mexico next, which Trump has signaled could be a future target.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“They want to do that next. They want to bomb Mexico,” Paul said.
Trump has said cartels are “running Mexico” and that “something’s going to have to be done” because Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is “very frightened” of the cartels.