New polling shows that the vast majority of Americans oppose military action in Venezuela even as the Trump administration expands its military presence in Latin America and discusses potential strikes. The gap between public sentiment and policy has widened in recent weeks as legal experts, lawmakers, and regional leaders warn that the administration has not justified its actions and may be operating outside established legal boundaries.
A CBS and YouGov survey conducted late last week found that “70 percent of Americans say that they would oppose the U.S. taking military action in Venezuela, with only 30 percent saying they support such an action.” The same polling showed that “76 percent… say that the administration has not clearly explained the U.S. position on military action in Venezuela.” When asked whether the president should provide an explanation, “97 percent of Democrats, 86 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans” agreed that Trump must do so.
Public perception of Venezuela does not align with the administration’s claims regarding national security. Most Americans consider Venezuela to be “either not a threat to the U.S., or only a minor threat, at 39 percent and 48 percent, respectively.” Even so, U.S. forces have conducted at least “21 strikes since September,” resulting in “at least 83 people” killed, according to publicly reported operations. Because Trump “has authorized the CIA to carry out covert lethal operations in the country,” it is possible that additional actions remain undisclosed.
Over the past several months, the United States has built the “largest military presence in Latin America in decades,” including warships and military aircraft stationed near Venezuela. For weeks, officials have publicly suggested that strikes may be imminent. Reports indicate that the administration has considered direct military action likely aimed at regime change even though “no known operations have begun yet.”
Legal concerns surrounding the ongoing escalation have intensified. NBC recently reported that “the senior military lawyer overseeing the strikes has said that the strikes are illegal, contrary to the administration’s claims.” According to the reporting, his opinion was rejected by more senior officials despite concerns “that troops could be held liable for carrying out the boat strikes.” Members of Congress have raised similar alarms, arguing that the administration may be disregarding constitutional requirements for congressional authorization. CBS and YouGov found that “three-quarters of Americans said that Trump needs congressional approval to carry out strikes within Venezuela.”
Experts have also said that this requirement applies to the boat strikes already underway, but the administration has dismissed these warnings. A top Justice Department lawyer claimed that Trump has the authority to conduct the strikes without Congress since they “do not qualify as hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution.
Meanwhile, recent scrutiny of U.S. maritime strikes has raised additional concerns. A related Truthout investigation reported that the Pentagon admitted to striking boats without verifying whether victims had any drug-trafficking links. One lawmaker said the White House cannot “satisfy the evidentiary burden” needed to prosecute individuals killed in these operations. Critics say this pattern increases the risk that Venezuelan civilians or noncombatants could be harmed if operations expand.
Trump has attempted to downplay the possibility of war while repeating unverified assertions about Venezuela. In a November 2 interview with 60 Minutes, he said “he doesn’t think that the U.S. is going to war with Venezuela” but then added that “they’ve been treating us very badly.” He followed these claims with a list of grievances, including the repeated and unsubstantiated allegation that Venezuela “emptied their prisons” into the United States. The administration has often used this claim in debates over immigration enforcement.
Public opinion on immigration policy mirrors concerns about the administration’s broader approach to Latin America. The CBS and YouGov poll found that “most Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration, at 55 percent, and believe that ICE is stopping more people than necessary, at 54 percent.”
Fears regarding the administration’s motivations increased further after comments by Rep. María Salazar during an appearance on Fox Business. In discussing the possibility of an invasion, Salazar said there were three reasons “we need to go in,” adding that “Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day.” Her remarks prompted widespread criticism. Justice Democrats said, “They’re not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil where have we heard this one before?” Veterans and military families also reacted with alarm. Fred Wellman, a U.S. Army combat veteran running for Congress, said, “They are sending our troops to war for the oil companies and not even pretending to lie about it. These sick SOBs are going to get our kids killed and it’s all a big joke.”
Salazar also claimed that Venezuela is a base for enemies of the United States and accused President Nicolás Maduro of leading the alleged Cartel de los Soles. Venezuelan interior and justice minister Diosdado Cabello has long maintained that the cartel is an “invention.” As BBC reporting cited, “Whenever someone bothers them, they name them as the head of the Cartel de los Soles,” he said. Colombian President Gustavo Petro likewise rejected the narrative, stating, “It is the fictional excuse of the far right to bring down governments that do not obey them.”
The administration’s recent decision to designate the alleged cartel as a foreign terrorist organization has intensified regional criticism, especially as the United States carries out lethal maritime operations and considers further strikes.
Despite these developments, public rejection of military action remains strong. Opposition includes “91 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of Republicans,” according to the CBS and YouGov survey. Even among those who typically support strong foreign policy measures, the lack of explanation and the absence of demonstrated threat have shaped an unusual degree of bipartisan skepticism.
Military assets continue to operate near Venezuelan territory and reporting indicates that planning for potential strikes is ongoing. The combination of legal challenges, regional objections, public opposition, inconsistent administration messaging, and comments linking intervention to oil interests has sharpened national debate.
As tensions escalate, the administration’s refusal to provide a clear justification continues to collide with overwhelming public opposition and mounting scrutiny from experts and lawmakers. With so many unanswered questions, the prospect of military action in Venezuela remains at the center of a political and legal conflict driven by secrecy and uncertainty rather than consensus or clarity.
COMMENTS