The operation in Venezuela to capture Maduro threatens to widen the cracks in the MAGA movement

In MAGA circles, the debate these days is largely semantic: What does the slogan “America First,” a central part of Trump’s ideology, really mean? Some argue that it signifies absolute isolationism, and therefore the operation in Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and the subsequent remarks that the United States will “run” the South American country are a betrayal of Trump’s campaign promise to prioritize issues directly affecting the American people above all else. But others reject the accusation of inconsistency and argue that the intervention in the South American country is inherently in the national interest, embracing the renewed Monroe Doctrine, now dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine” by President Trump.

The debate may be semantic, but it threatens to widen the cracks that have appeared in the MAGA coalition in this first year of Trump’s second presidency, such as the handling of the Epstein saga, the unwavering support for Israel, the bailout of Argentina, and the attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Since emerging as a surprise presidential candidate more than a decade ago, Trump has criticized the U.S. incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan to replace the governments of both countries as cardinal errors of American foreign policy. And, in general, he has rejected direct U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. In this context, the operation to capture Maduro and the volatile situation it has generated seems to be an example of what he has been vehemently criticizing for years.

The issue has required the intervention of Vice President J.D. Vance, who has explained what appears to be the official position. In a post on X, he attempted to settle the discussion by elaborating on the arguments that the operation to capture Maduro, and, more broadly, the military pressure that has been exerted on Venezuela in recent months, is justified by the supposed national interest in ending drug trafficking, even though experts point out that relatively few drugs leave Venezuela and are destined primarily for Europe.

The text aligned with the official line of the past few months and clearly addressed concerns about whether pressuring Venezuela is the most effective way to combat drug trafficking. But it also introduced an idea recently put forward by Trump: entering Venezuela is also about recovering legitimately American oil, allegedly stolen by the Chavista regime. “I see a lot of criticism about oil. About 20 years ago, Venezuela expropriated American oil property and until recently used that stolen property to get rich and fund their narcoterrorist activities. I understand the anxiety over the use of military force, but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing? Great powers don’t act like that,” Vance wrote.

But the messages from the highest-ranking members of the U.S. government haven’t been entirely consistent. President Trump himself initially said the United States was going to “run” Venezuela. Later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio backtracked, stating that there were no U.S. troops on Venezuelan soil and asserting that they would be negotiating with Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the presidency on Monday in replacement of Maduro.

The lack of transparency surrounding what comes next has been the target of criticism from Steve Bannon, the ideologue who accompanied Trump in his early political career and remains a prominent figure in the MAGA ecosystem through his podcast, which boasts millions of listeners. “The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry,” Bannon told The New York Times. “While President Trump makes the case for hemispheric defense, Rubio confuses with talk of removing Hamas and Hezbollah.” On his podcast, he praised the execution of the military operation but also raised the question of whether the current situation could lead to something like the “fiasco in Iraq under Bush.”

Among younger Trumpian influencers, who have a massive online presence, opinions against the operation have been strong and tinged with conspiracy theories, a hallmark of their rhetoric and one that, especially regarding Israel, has already proven to be a significant point of contention. Candace Owens, who has 7.5 million followers on X, asserted that “Venezuela has been “liberated” like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq were “liberated.” The CIA has staged another hostile takeover of a country at the behest of a [sic] globalist psychopaths.”

Among Republican politicians, reactions have been relatively subdued as they await greater clarity on what might happen in the immediate future. This is especially relevant given that Congress is set to resume sessions this Tuesday, and has already signaled its intention to investigate the events that led to the attack, which was carried out without its constitutionally required consent.

Only a few of those who had already broken ties with Trump over previous disagreements have openly criticized the capture of Maduro and the idea of taking control of Venezuela. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who on Monday became a former congresswoman after resigning her seat following her public clash with the president, published a lengthy post on X on Saturday, in which she dissected her interpretation of the situation, and on Sunday she spoke with NBC: “This is the same Washington playbook that we are so sick and tired of that doesn’t serve the American people, but actually serves big corporations, banks, and oil executives… The Trump Administration campaigned on Make America Great Again, that we thought was putting America first. I want to see domestic policy be the priority that helps Americans afford life after four disastrous years of the Biden administration.”

The situation has forced President Trump’s most loyal supporters to perform some logical contortions to justify the intervention. Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who supports isolationist foreign policy, seemed to endorse the idea that “America First” was compatible with invading another country and dictating its affairs. The line of reasoning is that, since what happens in the Western Hemisphere, and especially in the Americas, falls within the U.S. sphere of influence, any military action is justified as part of the national interest.

With these kinds of arguments, or simply with silence, Trump has so far avoided mass criticism from his supporters that might prove damaging. He has also, for the moment, prevented any serious movement—even one led by just a handful of Republican congressmen, given his extremely slim majority in Congress—that would force the president to answer to lawmakers.

A targeted, surgical operation, like the one that led to Maduro’s capture, is easier to accept than a full-scale invasion. But the enormous questions surrounding what comes next offer no guarantee that the United States won’t find itself embroiled in a direct conflict with Venezuela requiring the deployment of thousands of troops on the ground. If that scenario were to unfold, a MAGA split would likely be closer than ever.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition