‘Iraq 2.0’: Democrats Blast Trump’s Venezuela Strike
Smoke rises from a dock after explosions were heard at La Guaira port, Venezuela, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)
President Trump’s overnight decision to remove Venezuela’s leadership has ignited a new war-powers fight in Washington, with Democrats accusing the White House of launching a major military action without congressional authorization and warning of echoes of the Iraq war.
In a post on Truth Social, President Trump announced that U.S. forces had captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, describing the operation as a decisive strike against a hostile regime. The announcement immediately drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who questioned both the legality of the move and the administration’s long-term strategy, Politico reported.
Democrats argued that Congress never authorized military action against Venezuela and warned that the operation could leave a dangerous power vacuum in Caracas.
Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said Congress “did not authorize this war,” adding that Venezuela posed no imminent threat to the United States. He called the operation “reckless, elective regime change,” comparing it to “Iraq 2.0” and warning that wars “cost more than trophies.”
Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, an Iraq War veteran, described the action as the “second unjustified war” of his lifetime. He said the operation was illegal and argued that the United States had shifted “from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year,” adding there was no reason to be at war with Venezuela.
Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia raised broader concerns about presidential authority, asking where such actions might lead next — from potential interventions in Iran, Gaza, or Nigeria to domestic deployments. Kaine said the president appeared unwilling to seek authorization from Congress before putting U.S. service members at risk.
Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut acknowledged that Maduro is an illegitimate ruler but said he had seen no evidence that Venezuela posed a threat justifying unilateral military action. He also criticized the administration for failing to outline a plan for stabilizing the country afterward.
Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey accused senior administration officials of misleading Congress. He said Secretaries Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth had recently told senators the administration was not pursuing regime change, calling those assurances false and arguing the White House bypassed Congress because Americans oppose another war.
Republican reactions were more mixed.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah initially questioned the legality of the strike but later said, after speaking with Secretary of State Rubio, that it likely fell within the president’s constitutional authority under Article II to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina dismissed Democratic criticism, accusing liberals of being weak and tolerating what he described as a “drug caliphate” in the Western Hemisphere centered on Venezuela.
President Trump pushed back against the backlash in comments to Fox News ahead of a press conference at Mar-a-Lago. He said Democrats should be praising the operation rather than questioning its constitutionality, calling the criticism “the same old stuff” he has heard for years.
Public opinion, however, appears skeptical. A December Quinnipiac poll found that only about a quarter of Americans supported military intervention in Venezuela. Still, some Democrats from districts with large Venezuelan communities — including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz — welcomed Maduro’s capture, while also criticizing the president for acting without Congress’s involvement.
About Post Author
