A weekend U.S. operation in Venezuela that resulted in the arrest and removal of President Nicolás Maduro has set off a new round of political sparring in Washington, with Democrats denouncing the action and a faction of Republicans warning it risks repeating past interventionist mistakes. Supporters of the raid argue it was narrowly tailored, strategically focused, and aimed at threats close to home rather than an open-ended foreign entanglement.
In a high-profile commentary published Tuesday, The Federalist—a right-leaning digital outlet closely read and frequently amplified in MAGA-aligned and broader conservative policy circles in Washington—framed the operation as a “win” for America First anti-interventionism, not a departure from it. The piece, titled “The Venezuela Raid Was A Win For America First Anti-Interventionism” and written by senior editor John Daniel Davidson, contends that U.S. military power should be used “to secure and safeguard American interests,” arguing that the Caracas action fits that standard.
Davidson dismissed left-wing critiques that the operation was illegal, oil-driven, or a precursor to “Iraq 2.0,” calling them predictable and politically motivated. He also argued that Democratic leaders would reflexively condemn almost any overseas action by the Trump administration, even if it produced clear tactical results and avoided prolonged deployment.
More striking, Davidson wrote, is the pushback from within the political right. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted a lengthy dissent describing the raid as “regime change” and a betrayal of voters who supported Trump to end “never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars.” Greene also raised the question of whether U.S. action undermines American criticism of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s pressure on Taiwan: “Is it only ok if we do it?”
Davidson’s answer was blunt: yes—when U.S. force is used to protect U.S. interests and national security. He argued that Maduro’s Venezuela had become a hostile hub near U.S. borders, accusing the regime of colluding with narco-trafficking groups and inviting adversarial powers—China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran—into Venezuelan military and industrial structures. In his account, Russian-built air defenses were among the systems U.S. aviators had to neutralize, and Cuban troops were involved in Maduro’s personal security.
The commentary also leaned on older doctrines of hemispheric power. Davidson invoked the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary as historical precedents for preventing rival powers from gaining footholds in Latin America, arguing that the “rules-based international order” has always functioned differently for strong states than for weak, penetrated regimes. He claimed it would be unthinkable for the U.S. to conduct a similar arrest operation in a major European capital, but “permissible” in Caracas because, in his view, Venezuela lacks real sovereign power and effectively placed itself outside the system by aligning with U.S. rivals.
The dispute highlights a deeper tension inside the modern right: how to reconcile skepticism of nation-building with a willingness to use sharp, limited force. Davidson described Trump’s posture as “Jacksonian”—targeted, unilateral actions with defined ends—contrasting it with neoconservative-era wars of occupation. He cited recent pressure tactics—naval positioning off Venezuela’s coast, interdiction of drug shipments, and a tanker seizure—as steps designed to satisfy anti-interventionist instincts while escalating leverage.
For now, the administration’s supporters are celebrating a swift outcome and the absence of an occupation force. Critics, including Greene, warn the precedent could blur moral lines and invite blowback. The argument is likely to persist as Congress and the public weigh what “America First” means when it comes with helicopters, missiles, and a detainee on the tarmac.
Photo: The source