LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – After news broke that President Donald J. Trump authorized the capture and extradition of the illegitimate Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Michigan Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib issued a sharp condemnation, accusing Trump of carrying out an “illegal and unprovoked bombing of Venezuela” and what she described as the “kidnapping” of its president.
Tlaib argued the action violated international law and the U.S. Constitution, warning it reflected the behavior of a “rogue state” and amounted to an attempt at regime change – language that placed blame squarely on Trump and the United States rather than on the long-accused authoritarian leader now facing criminal charges. Her remarks framed Maduro not as an indicted authoritarian leader, but as a victim of American aggression.
MORE NEWS: Pound Buddies Aims to Stop Animal Cruelty Before It Starts
Missing from much of the criticism against Trump is a key fact: the United States has maintained an extradition treaty with Venezuela for more than 100 years – and Maduro has faced outstanding criminal charges in U.S. courts since 2020, including allegations tied to corruption and drug trafficking.
Democrats united in condemnation of Trump.
Over the weekend, a wave of Democrats took to X to condemn President Trump’s action against Maduro, labeling the operation illegal and unconstitutional and, in many cases, calling for Trump’s immediate impeachment. Michigan Democrats joined the criticism, attacking Trump’s decision to pursue the alleged drug trafficker regardless of the mission’s outcome.
Although Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer hasn’t commented on the situation yet, other Michigan Democrats have made statements including Rep. Debbie Dingell who posted, “The president cannot unilaterally depose a foreign leader. The American people do not want another regime change war.”
Two top Michigan U.S. Senators have also released statements. U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin said on X, ”President Trump’s decision to bomb targets in Venezuela, depose Nicolas Maduro, and ‘run’ Venezuela continues the signature trend of his presidency: relentless focus on foreign entanglements and looking tough abroad, so as to distract from what’s happening to Americans’ pocketbooks.”
Michigan Democratic U.S. Senator Gary Peters also released a statement on X saying, “The United States does not need to drag itself into another forever war that puts American service members in harm’s way and has no end in sight. The President said the United States will now run the nation of Venezuela. The American people did not ask for this.”
A precision strike, not a forever war.
That concern is precisely why, according to Republican Congressman John James, Trump acted as he did. James pushed back against criticism of Trump on X, where Democrats were falsely claiming all weekend that the U.S. was entering a “war.” James argued the opposite was true, writing, “Me and my buddies fought in a 20-year war because Bush and Obama couldn’t get done in four terms what Trump just got done in four hours. I voted for this!”
MORE NEWS: Rest, Not Residence: Michigan Considers New Rules for Highway Stops
Rather than launching a prolonged conflict, as James noted, the Trump administration conducted a tightly targeted military operation reported to have lasted just two hours and 28 minutes. The mission left Maduro alive and resulted in his capture and transfer to the United States to face trial.
Inside the operation.
A report in the Daily Mail explained how very precise the operation was. The U.S. “Operation Absolute Resolve” was meticulously planned and executed, involving months of intelligence work, rehearsals and interagency coordination before it was launched in the early hours of January 3, 2026; U.S. forces built a full replica of Maduro’s compound for training, studied his routines and waited for optimal weather conditions, then deployed more than 150 aircraft from 20 bases across the Western Hemisphere to suppress Venezuelan defenses and insert helicopters carrying special operations and law enforcement forces into Caracas, where they breached the target, apprehended Maduro and his wife without U.S. fatalities, and evacuated them by helicopter to the USS Iwo Jima so they could be transported to face charges in New York.
In his speech to the nation, Trump said, “This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history.”
Republicans largely applauded the operation, praising its precision, limited scope, and absence of U.S. casualties as evidence of strong leadership and military competence. Many echoed President Trump’s remarks, calling the mission a clear demonstration of American strength without dragging the country into a prolonged conflict.
Pushback by Democrats.
The legality of President Donald Trump’s authorization of the U.S. military operation is being debated and condemned by Democratic lawmakers and media outlets aligned with them. The administration argues the action was taken to enforce a 2020 federal indictment alleging narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, while critics contend it raises constitutional and international law concerns.
General Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was in charge of the mission, said in a press conference, “He (Maduro) is not the legitimate president of Venezuela. The first Trump administration, the Biden administration, the second Trump administration, none of the three recognized him…He is a fugitive of American Justice…”
Venezuelans react with joy.
While Democratic lawmakers expressed alarm over the mission, reactions inside Venezuela told a different story. Videos circulating online show Venezuelans openly celebrating Maduro’s removal – a response reflecting years of economic collapse, political repression, and mass emigration under his rule. The contrast is notable: condemnation from U.S. Democrats versus relief and optimism among many Venezuelans.
Politics first, the law second.
The reaction to the mission underscores how deeply polarized responses to Trump’s actions remain. Democratic critics have framed the operation primarily through concerns about legality and executive authority, viewing it through a prism aimed largely at condemning Trump, while the administration and its allies point to the existing indictment and the limited, targeted nature of the mission. The dispute reflects the ongoing partisan divide over how Trump’s actions are judged, with sharply different interpretations emerging based on who ordered the operation rather than solely on its legal or strategic merits.
