Focus on the BIG picture.
Wednesday, Dec 10, 2025
Outside the box.
Some Republican Lawmakers Push Back as Trump Signals Possible Ground Action in Venezuela
After approving broad boat strikes on alleged drug traffickers, GOP members express concern about escalation beyond maritime operations
Within Congress, a growing number of Republican lawmakers have voiced unease with Donald Trump’s suggestion that U.S. military involvement in Venezuela could expand beyond maritime strikes.
While many Republicans supported recent operations against suspected drug-smuggling vessels, the idea of bombing Venezuelan territory or deploying troops has triggered warnings that the administration may be overstepping.
The concern comes after the administration’s intensified campaign — branded Operation Southern Spear — which since September has seen at least 22 strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, resulting in scores of deaths, according to Pentagon data.
That campaign was justified as part of a broader effort to target narcotics trafficking networks alleged to be operating under Venezuelan control.
Still, for lawmakers such as Josh Hawley (R-MO), there is a “clear difference” between striking suspected narco-trafficking boats and authorising a full-scale ground invasion or bombing of Venezuelan territory.
“I would be very skeptical of any attempt to send U.S. troops in there,” he said.
Others have echoed reluctance to back moves that could drag the United States into a protracted conflict under the guise of anti-drug operations.
Some Republicans do continue to defend the maritime strikes as falling within presidential authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) argued that the boats targeted in these operations are part of a narcotics “armed conflict” threatening American lives — a framing used by the administration to justify lethal force.
But the debate is widening.
With recent remarks by Trump refusing to rule out “land strikes,” several prominent GOP figures remain unconvinced — especially since Congress has not granted explicit authorisation for such operations.
That has led to renewed calls for oversight and legal clarity.
The potential for troop deployment in Venezuela is now one of the sharpest divisions within the party, reflecting deep concern about expanding a narcotics-focused mission into a broader military engagement.
As House and Senate defence-oversight committees weigh possible hearings and the broader public watches anxiously, the internal Republican hesitation over escalation may become a key check on the White House’s more expansive use of force abroad.
While many Republicans supported recent operations against suspected drug-smuggling vessels, the idea of bombing Venezuelan territory or deploying troops has triggered warnings that the administration may be overstepping.
The concern comes after the administration’s intensified campaign — branded Operation Southern Spear — which since September has seen at least 22 strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, resulting in scores of deaths, according to Pentagon data.
That campaign was justified as part of a broader effort to target narcotics trafficking networks alleged to be operating under Venezuelan control.
Still, for lawmakers such as Josh Hawley (R-MO), there is a “clear difference” between striking suspected narco-trafficking boats and authorising a full-scale ground invasion or bombing of Venezuelan territory.
“I would be very skeptical of any attempt to send U.S. troops in there,” he said.
Others have echoed reluctance to back moves that could drag the United States into a protracted conflict under the guise of anti-drug operations.
Some Republicans do continue to defend the maritime strikes as falling within presidential authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) argued that the boats targeted in these operations are part of a narcotics “armed conflict” threatening American lives — a framing used by the administration to justify lethal force.
But the debate is widening.
With recent remarks by Trump refusing to rule out “land strikes,” several prominent GOP figures remain unconvinced — especially since Congress has not granted explicit authorisation for such operations.
That has led to renewed calls for oversight and legal clarity.
The potential for troop deployment in Venezuela is now one of the sharpest divisions within the party, reflecting deep concern about expanding a narcotics-focused mission into a broader military engagement.
As House and Senate defence-oversight committees weigh possible hearings and the broader public watches anxiously, the internal Republican hesitation over escalation may become a key check on the White House’s more expansive use of force abroad.
