• Trump's military action against Venezuela marks a dramatic shift in his foreign policy approach.
• The former president claims the U.S. will "run" Venezuela temporarily after capturing President Maduro.
• Reactions from the Republican Party are mixed, with some dissent from MAGA supporters.
• Critics argue that Trump's actions contradict his stated agenda of avoiding foreign conflicts.

President Donald Trump's recent military intervention in Venezuela, which resulted in the capture of President Nicolas Maduro, represents a significant break from the "America First" rhetoric and his long-standing vagueness on foreign intervention. During a press conference, Trump stated, "We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition," indicating a newly aggressive stance on regime change that contradicts his earlier promises to refrain from foreign entanglements. This decision has left Americans unsure about the consequences of this unprecedented foreign military action, as Trump's history includes promising to end "forever wars" while now engaging decisively in a conflict abroad, according to Reuters and HuffPost.

As Trump emphasizes their urgent need to stabilize Venezuela and access its oil resources, he faces a growing backlash from some factions within the Republican Party. Lawmakers such as Senator Lindsey Graham have publicly supported the operation, framing it as a necessary step against a "criminal regime," while others, including Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, express disappointment, stating that Trump's approach was contrary to what his supporters expected when voting for him. Greene tweeted, "This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end; boy were we wrong," illustrating the divide within the party over foreign military interventions, according to Al Jazeera, Reuters, and Channel News Asia.

In his announcement, Trump not only justified the military action as part of an initiative for U.S. national security, asserting that stabilizing Venezuela aligns with broader U.S. interests. "We want to surround ourselves with good neighbors... surrounding ourselves with energy," he claimed, emphasizing Venezuela's oil reserves. However, his remarks distanced himself from supporting opposition figures like Maria Corina Machado, viewed favorably by some Western leaders, stating she lacked the necessary respect and support within the country. This approach suggests a potential pivot away from democratic principles to prioritize U.S. interests in oil and security, as reported by Channel News Asia.

The implications of such actions could resonate beyond Venezuela, raising concerns among international observers who fear the destabilizing effects of U.S. interventionist policy. Trump's moves may also provide justification for hostile actions by other nations, as highlighted by concerns regarding Russia's ongoing operations in Ukraine following Trump's attacks on Maduro. This military approach contrasts sharply with Trump's earlier criticisms of U.S. engagement in conflicts, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as echoed by skepticism from other Congressional leaders and political analysts, according to BBC and HuffPost.

While Republican lawmakers largely support Trump's aggressive strategy, others within the party are cautioning against the potential pitfalls of military incursions, which could lead to long-term commitments and entanglements reminiscent of past conflicts. Senator Mike Lee has questioned the legality and rationale behind the intervention without congressional authorization, challenging Trump's inherent right to act in this capacity. Representative Thomas Massie highlighted the potential humanitarian crisis that could arise from such actions, noting the risks associated with military involvement in foreign nations, according to Al Jazeera and HuffPost.