Hold onto your hats, folks—President Trump’s latest move to snatch Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in a daring military sting has ignited a firestorm of criticism from Governor Gavin Newsom and his Democratic allies.
According to the New York Post, the controversy erupted after a swift U.S. operation dubbed "Operation Absolute Resolve" captured Maduro in Caracas, only to face accusations from top Democrats of it being a thinly veiled oil grab and a distraction from pressing domestic challenges.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: Maduro, long a thorn in the side of U.S. policy, was apprehended in a lightning-fast strike in Venezuela’s capital. Now, he and his wife are in New York City, facing serious narco-terrorism charges. It’s a bold play, no doubt, but the backlash has been just as fierce.
Enter Governor Newsom, who didn’t mince words when slamming the operation as reckless. He’s not alone—Democrats from California to Congress are piling on, suggesting this is less about justice and more about Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. One has to wonder if they’d be singing a different tune if their party were calling the shots.
Newsom, often whispered to be eyeing a White House bid in the future, framed his critique as a call for higher ideals. “Maduro is a thug and a criminal. But Donald Trump proposing to ‘run’ Venezuela without a coherent long-term plan beyond an oil grab is dangerous for America,” he said, as reported by The Hill.
Let’s unpack that: sure, Maduro’s no saint, but is Newsom really arguing we should just sit on our hands while narco-terrorism festers? Trump’s approach may be brash, but doing nothing hasn’t exactly stabilized Venezuela either. The “democracy and stability” mantra sounds noble, but it often masks inaction.
Other Democrats echoed similar skepticism about the operation’s motives. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to X to blast the move as a sham. “It’s not about drugs. It’s about oil and regime change,” she posted, alleging a cover-up tied to unrelated domestic scandals.
With all due respect to the congresswoman, isn’t it possible to tackle multiple issues at once? Her claim that this is purely an oil grab dismisses the very real charges Maduro faces. Painting this as a distraction feels like a convenient way to dodge the hard question of accountability.
Across the aisle in Arizona, Senator Mark Kelly offered a nuanced take, calling Maduro a “brutal, illegitimate dictator” who deserves custody. Yet, he stopped short of endorsing the military strike, hinting at echoes of past foreign policy blunders. It’s a fair concern, but hesitation can’t always be the default when dealing with tyrants.
Senator Ruben Gallego, also from Arizona, was far less diplomatic, outright condemning the U.S. for sparking conflict in Venezuela. His stance raises eyebrows—does he believe Maduro should just walk free? It’s a tough line to draw without sounding like an apologist for a regime with a rap sheet as long as Caracas is wide.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who recently passed on running for Newsom’s soon-to-be-open seat in California, also chimed in with criticism. She accused the administration of lacking an exit strategy, suggesting this is more about Trump’s whims than national interest. While she’s not wrong to demand a plan, dismissing the operation outright ignores the gravity of Maduro’s alleged crimes.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg joined the chorus via X, arguing that Americans aren’t eager to manage foreign nations while domestic issues fester. Fair point—healthcare costs and other home-front battles deserve attention. But isn’t securing stability abroad also part of keeping America safe?
The core of this debate seems to hinge on priorities. Democrats argue Trump’s focus on Venezuela is a sleight of hand to dodge scrutiny over internal struggles. Yet, ignoring a figure like Maduro, whose actions have destabilized an entire region, isn’t exactly a recipe for long-term peace.
Operation Absolute Resolve may not be perfect, but it’s a decisive step against a leader accused of heinous acts. Critics like Newsom and Harris have valid concerns about strategy and intent, but their alternative—endless dialogue with a regime that scoffs at human rights—feels like a progressive fantasy. Sometimes, action, even messy action, is the least bad option. So, where does this leave us? The Maduro saga is far from over, with legal battles in New York and political battles in Washington just heating up. Trump’s move has certainly stirred the pot, but whether it’s a masterstroke or a misstep, only time—and perhaps Venezuela’s oil fields—will tell.