Connect with us

World

Home Insurance Rates in America Are Wildly Distorted. Here’s Why.

Published

on

Home Insurance Rates in America Are Wildly Distorted. Here’s Why.

Source: Keys and Mulder, National Bureau of Economic Research (2024)

Note: State average is shown in counties with few or no observations.

Enid, Okla., surrounded by farms about 90 minutes north of Oklahoma City, has an unwelcome distinction: Home insurance is more expensive, relative to home values, than almost anywhere else in the country.

Enid is hardly the American community that is most vulnerable to damaging weather. Yet as a share of home prices, insurance costs more in parts of Enid than in New Orleans, much of which is below sea level. More than in Paradise, Calif., which was destroyed by the Camp fire in 2018. More than in the Florida Keys, which are frequently wracked by hurricanes. Even more than in the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where houses have begun slipping into the rising sea.

Advertisement

Enid’s plight reveals an odd distortion in America’s system of pricing home insurance. As a warming planet delivers increasingly damaging weather, the cost of home insurance has jumped drastically. But companies are charging some people, especially in the middle of the country and parts of the southeast, far more than other homeowners with similar levels of risk, an examination by The New York Times has shown.

Explore home insurance costs in your area with our interactive map.

Industry experts offer several reasons for the disparities, including the fact rural states have fewer homeowners to share risk, and states have varying rates of insurance fraud, which can drive up premiums.

But new research points to a striking pattern: Higher premiums are being charged in states where regulators apply less scrutiny to requests for rate increases, compared with states where officials question the justifications offered by companies and try to keep rates low, the data show.

The analysis is based on new data that make it possible for the first time to see what households pay for home insurance by county and ZIP code, across the United States. The average premium jumped 33 percent between 2020 and 2023, far more than the rate of inflation, the data show. But in some places, homeowners are paying more than twice as much for insurance, as a share of home value, than people who live elsewhere and face similar exposure to severe weather.

Advertisement

Sources: Keys and Mulder, National Bureau of Economic Research (2024); Zillow; FEMA; First Street Foundation.

Note: “Average premium as a share of home value” compares median home insurance premium in 2023 to Zillow’s typical home value estimate in each county. State average shown in counties with few or no observations.

As a result, America’s home insurance market is increasingly distorted, said Ishita Sen, a professor of finance at Harvard Business School who studies why insurance rates diverge from risk.

In communities where insurance rates exceed the actual risk, home ownership can be unaffordable. And in places where insurance prices are too low, it encourages people to move into homes in areas likely to be hit by wildfires or other disasters that could deliver financial ruin, Dr. Sen said.

Advertisement

The market is “incentivizing all sorts of crazy behavior,” she said.

Getting a detailed look at the cost of insurance in different parts of the United States has been almost impossible until now because private insurers don’t publicly disclose what they charge. But two researchers, Benjamin Keys, a professor of real estate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and Philip Mulder, a professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Business, found a workaround.

Homeowners often pay their insurance premiums together with their mortgage and property tax, through an escrow account. They make a single payment every month to a mortgage service company, which then pays the mortgage lender, the local government and the insurance company. The system is designed to ensure homeowners never miss a payment.

Working with CoreLogic, a property information and analytics company that collects data from mortgage servicers, the researchers obtained data for about 12.4 million of the nation’s roughly 80 million owner-occupied households. That data showed how much those households paid in escrow annually from 2014 through 2023. After deducting payments for mortgages, property tax and other fees, they could estimate what each household paid for property insurance.

Source: Keys and Mulder, National Bureau of Economic Research (2024)

Advertisement

Note: Inflation-adjusted. Each line depicts the median of all loan observations within a risk group.

There is certainly a relationship between climate risk and what insurance companies charge for coverage in case of damage from extreme weather. But all kinds of other factors get in the way, causing a misalignment between risk and premiums.

In McCurtain County, Okla., for example, the typical homeowner paid an average of $2,837 for insurance. But in the same area with the same weather just across the state line, the average homeowner in Little River County, Ark., paid $1,673.

The cost of insurance is often higher for large, expensive homes because they cost more to replace. To get more accurate comparisons, Dr. Keys and Dr. Mulder looked at insurance costs as a share of the typical local home value.

Advertisement

Across the more than 9,000 ZIP codes for which data was available, the typical American household last year paid about $500 in home insurance premiums for every $100,000 of home value, or 0.5 percent, the professors found.

But in California, which suffered through more than 7,000 wildfires last year, the typical homeowner in many ZIP codes paid premiums as low as .05 percent of home value. By contrast, in parts of Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas, the average homeowner faced home insurance premiums greater than 2 percent of the value of local homes.

“Families with the same level of risk exposure pay wildly different amounts to protect themselves from harm,” Dr. Keys said. “Different prices for the same risk feels unfair.”

A visitor to Enid, population 50,000, would not recognize it as the riskiest spot in America to own a house. At the center of town is the Garfield County Courthouse, a handsome Art Deco structure built during the Great Depression, surrounded by a wide and inviting lawn. The square is ringed by storefronts offering cannabis, legal services and $500 cowboy boots.

The federal government designates Garfield County, which includes Enid and sometimes suffers hail storms and tornadoes, as having a “relatively low” level of risk. Yet the typical Enid homeowner spent $2,113 on home insurance last year, according to the researchers. That was 3.5 percent of the average home value of about $60,000 — more than six times the national average.

Advertisement

That high cost is taking its toll.

In 2019, Kelsey Keyworth bought her first house, a handsome pale-gray bungalow with a wood deck and white trim. She hoped to stay in the house until her son, who is now 13, finished high school. But despite never filing an insurance claim, her premiums jumped by 42 percent over three years. Ms. Keyworth, the membership director at Enid’s YMCA, decided to sell and move with her son into a rental home.

“It’s kind of heartbreaking,” Ms. Keyworth said on a recent afternoon at a coffee shop in Enid. “You’re like, gosh, I tried so hard to get here.”

Torrie Vann, the real estate agent who sold Ms. Keyworth’s house, said that since February, other clients had sold their homes because of rising insurance premiums. “They’re having to sell and buy something smaller,” she said.

Kelsey Keyworth in Champlin Park in Enid.

Advertisement

Megann Johnson, agent and owner of Great Plains Insurance.

Home buyers, meanwhile, are reacting to rising premiums in Enid by settling for smaller houses than they planned, according to Jeff Shaffer, another Realtor in town. “People are having to buy down,” he said. “There’s a lot of sticker shock.”

Oklahoma is the sixth-most expensive state for home insurance. (The top five are Florida, New York, Louisiana, Colorado and Hawaii.) But measured as a share of home value, Oklahoma ranks third, behind Louisiana and Mississippi.

Advertisement

Along the edges of Oklahoma, the premium paid by the typical household last year was as much as 70 percent higher than in adjacent counties in Texas, Arkansas and Kansas — despite those counties having similar levels of exposure to disasters, according to federal data.

Megann Johnson is an insurance agent in Enid whose own home insurance premiums almost doubled, to $4,860 this year from $2,570 in 2021. She says her aunts, who sell insurance in nearby Kansas, tease her about what they call Oklahoma’s “stupid” high rates. “Our risk is the same, right?” Ms. Johnson said. “We’re 50 miles from the state line.”

Glen W. Mulready, Oklahoma’s elected insurance commissioner, has never exercised his power to deny a rate increase requested by an insurance company for home insurance. He said he believed that competition, not regulation, was the best way to hold down prices.

But that could be one important reason why Oklahoma homeowners with relatively low risk are paying high premiums, according to Dr. Sen.

In states where officials tightly control what insurance companies can charge, premiums tend to be priced below what they would be if they reflected the true likelihood of damage from storms, fires or other catastrophes, she and her co-authors found.

Advertisement

Source: Keys and Mulder, National Bureau of Economic Research (2024)

Note: “High regulation” and “lower regulation” categories from Oh, Sen and Tenekedjieva, Harvard Business School working paper (2022).

And Dr. Sen and her colleagues discovered something else.

After big losses in those tightly regulated states, such as California, national insurers tend to raise rates in more loosely regulated states. In other words, homeowners in states with weaker rules may be overpaying for insurance, effectively subsidizing homeowners in states with tougher rules, she said.

Advertisement

If California makes it especially hard for insurers to increase premiums, Oklahoma makes it much easier.

Mr. Mulready defended his approach, saying it’s not his role to stop private insurance companies from raising rates in Oklahoma.

“We allow the competitive free market to work,” he said in an interview. If national companies raised rates in Oklahoma to make up losses in states like California, they would lose business to local insurers, Mr. Mulready said.

But Dr. Sen said her research suggests the home insurance market is far less competitive than it might seem. After choosing an insurer, people often stick with that same company, even if their premiums go up, she said.

Three insurers — State Farm, Farmers, and Allstate — collectively wrote more than half of all home insurance in Oklahoma last year. A spokesman for Allstate, Michael Passman, said in a statement that “we do not raise rates in one state to offset losses in another.” State Farm and Farmers did not respond to questions. Allstate is publicly traded; State Farm and Farmers are not. (Farmers’ parent company, Zurich Insurance Group, is traded on the Swiss exchange.)

Advertisement

Allstate and State Farm reported a profit in their life insurance divisions last year but losses in property and casualty insurance left them in the red companywide, according to AM Best, a company that rates the financial strength of insurers. Farmers also lost money in its property and casualty insurance operations, which include home insurance, but it’s not clear if its overall business turned a profit.

Homes in Enid. Oklahoma’s current insurance commissioner has never blocked an insurers’ rate increase.

There are some other possible explanations for why insurance companies charge wildly different rates in places facing similar threats.

Insurance can be more expensive in smaller, more rural states, where there are fewer households to share the risk, said Karen Collins, a vice president at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which represents insurance companies. Some states require higher minimum levels of coverage, which makes policies more expensive. And fraudulent claims, which end up increasing premium costs, can be more prevalent in some locations than others, she said.

Advertisement

Reinsurance is another reason. The price of reinsurance (effectively, insurance purchased by insurance companies to make sure they can cover losses) has spiked in recent years. Companies buy different amounts in different parts of the country and pass those costs onto homeowners.

A fourth factor is whether a state has a government-mandated, high-risk pool of insurance designed for homeowners who cannot find private coverage. Research suggests those pools, which are available in about two-thirds of states, can lower private insurance premiums. Oklahoma has no such risk pool, though creating one would “certainly pull down rates,” Mr. Mulready said. The question for lawmakers, he added, is “whether that’s the role of government.”

Explaining the distortions in the insurance market is perhaps easier than fixing them.

United Policyholders, a nonprofit group that advocates for consumers, said the fact that some households pay more for insurance than others, despite having the same level of risk, underlined the need for regulators to demand more transparency about how insurers set rates.

That discrepancy in rates “is certainly not fair,” said Emily Rogan, a senior program officer at United Policyholders. She said customers need to know what data insurers collect on them, so that they have the opportunity to contest information that may be inaccurate.

Advertisement

Forrest Bennett is an insurance agent in Oklahoma City and a Democratic state lawmaker. He said the challenge his state faced was how to protect the average homeowner from high premiums without causing insurers to flee because they can’t turn a profit, as has happened in California.

Mr. Bennett praised a new state program that gives homeowners money to install hail-resistant roofs, which he hopes will lower premiums. But he said enacting broader reforms to address the cost of disasters “requires people to accept that climate change is real.”

The rising cost of home insurance is “where climate change meets the average American’s pocketbook,” Mr. Bennett said. “We are trending toward a place where it’s not sustainable.”

Covington, Okla., just south of Enid. Oklahoma is one of the most expensive states for home insurance.

Advertisement

Last fall, the Senate Budget Committee began investigating rising insurance rates and how underwriters are responding to the growing dangers of extreme weather.

“Climate havoc” is pushing up insurance costs and risks upending “housing markets, mortgage markets, and local property tax bases, and spilling out into the broader economy,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island and the committee’s chairman, said at a hearing on the issue in June. He warned that climate change threatens the stability of the insurance market and, by extension, the economy, in a way that “sounds eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the mortgage meltdown of 2008.”

And even in places where insurance costs remain relatively flat, the disconnect between premiums and actual risk is cause for concern, Dr. Keys said. As climate change gets worse, those insurance costs will eventually rise, and possibly quickly, he said — hurting home values, shocking some homeowners and destabilizing real estate.

“I personally think we’re in a lot of trouble,” Dr. Keys said. “This should be ringing alarm bells for housing markets all over the country.”

Edited by Lyndsey Layton and Douglas Alteen

Advertisement

Additional visual editing: Claire O’Neill and Matt McCann

Methodology

Home insurance cost map: Keys and Mulder calculated annual homeowners insurance costs by separating mortgage and tax payments from loan-level escrow data obtained from CoreLogic. Households whose payments were captured by CoreLogic were not necessarily present in all years of data from 2014 to 2023.

Climate risk map vs. insurance costs as a share of home value map: Risk percentiles are based on a combination of FEMA’s National Risk Index expected annual loss rates per dollar of building value for hail, heat and cold waves, ice storms, lightning, strong winds, tornadoes, volcanic activity and winter weather. Wildfire and hurricane risk data came from First Street Foundation, which separates flood risk out of their hurricane risk score. Flooding is typically covered by the National Flood Insurance Program and less likely to be reflected in the escrow-based data.

State regulation charts: Risk scores use the composite FEMA and First Street Foundation risk scores. Categorization of “high regulation” and “low regulation” states come from analysis of requested and approved rate filings from Oh, Sen and Tenekedjieva (2022), where “lower regulation” includes both low and medium friction states. Regulation analysis was conducted on rate filing requests from 2009 to 2019. The charts use a loess regression to visualize the overall trend.

Advertisement

“High regulation” states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

World

Maduro arrives in US after stunning capture in operation that Trump says will let US ‘run’ Venezuela

Published

on

Maduro arrives in US after stunning capture in operation that Trump says will let US ‘run’ Venezuela

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro arrived in the United States to face criminal charges after being captured in an audacious nighttime military operation that President Donald Trump said would set the U.S. up to “run” the South American country and tap its vast oil reserves to sell to other nations.

Maduro landed Saturday evening at a small airport in New York following the middle-of-the-night operation that extracted him and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their home in a military base in the capital city of Caracas — an act that Maduro’s government called “imperialist.” The couple faces U.S. charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

The dramatic action capped an intensive Trump administration pressure campaign on Venezuela’s autocratic leader and months of secret planning, resulting in the most assertive American action to achieve regime change since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Legal experts raised questions about the lawfulness of the operation, which was done without congressional approval. Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, demanded that the United States free Maduro and called him the country’s rightful leader as her nation’s high court named her interim president.

Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, said Rodríguez, who didn’t give a number. Trump said some U.S. forces were injured, but none were killed.

Speaking to reporters hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump revealed his plans to exploit the leadership void to “fix” the country’s oil infrastructure and sell “large amounts” of oil to other countries.

Advertisement

Trump says US will ‘run the country’

The Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.

Trump claimed the U.S. government would help lead the country and was already doing so, though there were no immediate visible signs of that. Venezuelan state TV aired pro-Maduro propaganda and broadcast live images of supporters taking to the streets in Caracas in protest.

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. He boasted that this “extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives.”

Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, and the Justice Department released a new indictment Saturday of Maduro and his wife that painted his administration as a “corrupt, illegitimate government” fueled by a drug-trafficking operation that flooded the U.S with cocaine. The U.S. government does not recognize Maduro as the country’s leader.

The Trump administration spent months building up American forces in the region and carrying out attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean for allegedly ferrying drugs. Last week, the CIA was behind a drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. campaign began in September.

Advertisement

Early morning attack

Taking place 36 years to the day after the 1990 surrender and seizure of Panama leader Manuel Antonio Noriega following a U.S. invasion, the Venezuela operation unfolded under the cover of darkness early Saturday. Trump said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights” in Caracas while forces moved in to extract Maduro and his wife.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and his clothes.

“We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again,” Caine said. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”

Multiple explosions rang out that morning, and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas. Maduro’s government accused the United States of hitting civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets. The explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they saw and heard.

Under Venezuelan law, Rodríguez would take over from Maduro. Rodríguez, however, stressed during a Saturday appearance on state television that she did not plan to assume power, before Venezuela’s high court ordered that she become interim president.

Advertisement

“There is only one president in Venezuela,” Rodriguez said, “and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

Some streets in Caracas fill up

Venezuela’s ruling party has held power since 1999, when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, took office, promising to uplift poor people and later to implement a self-described socialist revolution.

Maduro took over when Chávez died in 2013. His 2018 reelection was widely considered a sham because the main opposition parties were banned from participating. During the 2024 election, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared him the winner hours after polls closed, but the opposition gathered overwhelming evidence that he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

In a demonstration of how polarizing Maduro is, people variously took to the streets to protest his capture, while others celebrated it. At a protest in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, Mayor Carmen Meléndez joined a crowd demanding Maduro’s return.

“Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up!” the crowd chanted. “We are here, Nicolás Maduro. If you can hear us, we are here!”

Advertisement

In other parts of the city, the streets were empty hours after the attack.

“How do I feel? Scared, like everyone,” said Caracas resident Noris Prada, who sat on an empty avenue looking at his phone. “Venezuelans woke up scared. Many families couldn’t sleep.”

In Doral, Florida, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States, people wrapped themselves in Venezuelan flags, ate fried snacks and cheered as music played. At one point, the crowd chanted “Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!”

Questions of legality

linger

Whether the United States violated any laws, international or otherwise, was still a question early Sunday. “There are a number of international legal concepts which the United States might have broken by capturing Maduro,” said Ilan Katz, an international law analyst.

In New York, the U.N. Security Council, acting on an emergency request from Colombia, planned to hold a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela on Monday morning. That was according to a council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a meeting not yet made public.

Advertisement

Lawmakers from both American political parties have raised reservations and flat-out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling. Congress has not approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had seen no evidence that would justify Trump striking Venezuela without approval from Congress and demanded an immediate briefing by the administration on “its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”

___

Toropin and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela; Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price, Seung Min Kim and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington; Farnoush Amiri in New York; and Larry Neumeister in South Amboy, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

World

Maduro capture echoes Noriega takedown that used rock music as psychological warfare against dictator

Published

on

Maduro capture echoes Noriega takedown that used rock music as psychological warfare against dictator

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Saturday is reviving memories of the dramatic 1989 takedown of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, which coincidentally took place 36 years ago to the day of Maduro’s Jan. 3 capture.

Under former President George H.W. Bush, U.S. forces launched a surprise invasion of Panama in the early hours of Dec. 20, 1989, accusing Noriega of conspiring with drug traffickers to funnel cocaine into America. 

He had also faced allegations of manipulating the country’s 1989 presidential election.

MADURO MET CHINESE ENVOY HOURS BEFORE US CAPTURE FROM CARACAS AS BEIJING SLAMS OPERATION

Advertisement

“The goal was to restore the democratically elected government of Guillermo Endara and arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges,” the U.S. Army’s website states. “At the time, Operation Just Cause was the largest and most complex combat operation since the Vietnam War.”

Similarly to Saturday’s operation involving Maduro, the Panama invasion proceeded without explicit authorization from Congress, according to Axios. 

Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega at a ceremony commemorating the death of the national hero, Omar Torrijos, in Panama City.  (Bill Gentile/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)

Noriega’s capture, however, unfolded over several weeks as he evaded arrest by taking refuge inside the Vatican’s embassy in Panama City.

U.S. troops used psychological warfare to force Noriega out of hiding.

Advertisement

In a tactic known as Operation Nifty Package, military vehicles with loudspeakers blasted non-stop rock music with a playlist that included songs by The Clash, Van Halen and U2, BBC News reported.

Noriega surrendered to U.S. forces Jan. 3, 1990, 36 years to the day before the U.S. capture of Maduro, and was flown to America to stand trial, Axios reported.

MADURO-BACKED TDA GANG’S EXPANSION INTO US CITIES EMERGES AS KEY FOCUS OF SWEEPING DOJ INDICTMENT

Former Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega is pictured in this Jan. 4, 1990, file photo. (Reuters/HO JDP)

The operation resulted in the deaths of 23 U.S. service members and left 320 others wounded. The Pentagon estimated that roughly 200 Panamanian civilians and 314 Panamanian military personnel were killed, according to The Associated Press.

Advertisement

In 1992, Noriega was convicted on drug trafficking charges in a Miami federal court and received a 40-year prison sentence.

He was granted prisoner-of-war status, housed in a separate bungalow away from other inmates and was allowed to wear his Panamanian military uniform and insignia in court, the AP reported.

WASHINGTON POST PRAISES TRUMP’S VENEZUELA OPERATION AS ‘UNQUESTIONABLE TACTICAL SUCCESS’

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro addresses supporters during a rally marking the anniversary of the 19th-century Battle of Santa Ines in Caracas, Venezuela, Dec. 10.  (Pedro Rances Mattey/Anadolu via Getty Images)

After serving 17 years in a U.S. prison, he was extradited to France and later Panama. He died in 2017.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump announced Saturday that Maduro and his wife had been captured and flown out of the country as part of Operation Absolute Resolve.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In recent months, the U.S. military has carried out a series of strikes on suspected drug vessels allegedly liked to the Venezuelan regime in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific. 

Until a permanent leader can be found, the U.S. government will “run” Venezuela, Trump said, “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

US Republicans back Trump on Venezuela amid faint MAGA dissent

Published

on

US Republicans back Trump on Venezuela amid faint MAGA dissent

Since coming down the escalator in 2015 to announce his first presidential run, Donald Trump has presented himself as a break from the traditional hawkish foreign policy in the United States.

The US president has even criticised some of his political rivals as “warmongers” and “war hawks”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

But Trump’s move to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and announce that the US will “run” the Latin American country has drawn comparisons with the regime change wars that he built a political career rejecting.

Some critics from Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, who backed his message of focusing on the country’s own issues instead of conflicts abroad, are criticising Washington’s march to war with Venezuela.

Still, Trump’s grip on Republican politics appears to remain firm, with most legislators from the party praising Trump’s actions.

Advertisement

“To President Trump and his team, you should take great pride in setting in motion the liberation of Venezuela,” Senator Lindsey Graham wrote in a social media post.

“As I have often said, it is in America’s national security interest to deal with the drug caliphate in our backyard, the centrepiece of which is Venezuela.”

Graham’s reference to a “drug caliphate” seems to play on Islamophobic tropes and promote the push to liken the US attacks on alleged drug traffickers in Latin America to the so-called “war on terror”.

The US senator heaped praise on the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize – handed to Trump by the association’s chief, Gianni Infantino, in December – and called him “the GOAT of the American presidency”, which stands for “the greatest of all time”.

Muted criticism

While it was expected that Graham and other foreign policy hawks in Trump’s orbit would back the moves against Venezuela, even some of the Republican sceptics of foreign interventions cheered the abduction of Maduro.

Advertisement

Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, one of the most vocal critics of hawkish foreign policy on the right, poked fun at the “capture” of the Venezuelan president.

“Maduro is gonna hate CECOT,” he wrote on X, referring to the notorious prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration sent hundreds of suspected gang members without due process.

Libertarian Senator Rand Paul, who has been a leading voice in decrying Congress’s war-making power, only expressed muted disapproval of Trump’s failure to seek lawmakers’ authorisation for military action in Venezuela.

“Time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost,” he wrote in a lengthy statement that mostly argued against bringing “socialism” to the US.

“Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorisation for a reason – to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defence. Let’s hope those precepts of peace are not forgotten in our justified relief that Maduro is gone and the Venezuelan people will have a second chance.”

Advertisement

Early on Saturday morning, Republican Senator Mike Lee questioned the legality of the attack. “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorisation for the use of military force,” he wrote on X.

Lee later said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him that US troops were executing a legal arrest warrant against Maduro.

“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” the senator said.

Dissent

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the few dissenting voices.

“Americans’ disgust with our own government’s never-ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,”  Greene wrote on X.

Advertisement

Greene, a former Trump ally who fell out with the US president and is leaving Congress next week, rejected the argument that Trump ordered Maduro’s “capture” because of the Venezuelan president’s alleged involvement in the drug trade.

She noted that Venezuela is not a major exporter of fentanyl, the leading cause of overdose deaths in the US.

She also underscored that, last month, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted drug trafficker who was serving a 45-year sentence in a US jail.

“Regime change, funding foreign wars, and American’s [sic] tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes, foreigners both home and abroad, and foreign governments while Americans are consistently facing increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare, and learn about scams and fraud of their tax dollars is what has most Americans enraged,” Greene said.

Congressman Tomas Massie, another Republican, shared a speech he delivered in the House of Representatives earlier this month, warning that attacking Venezuela is about “oil and regime change”.

Advertisement

“Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans, who will likely become refugees, and billions in American treasure that will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie said in the remarks.

“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution.”

While Massie and Greene are outliers in their party, Trump’s risky moves in Venezuela were a success in the short term: Maduro is in US custody at a minimal cost to Washington.

Similarly, few Republicans opposed the US war in Iraq when then-President George W Bush stood under the “mission accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln after toppling Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 2003.

But there is now a near consensus across the political spectrum that the Iraq invasion was a geopolitical disaster.

Advertisement

The fog of war continues to hang over Venezuela, and it is unclear who is in charge of the country, or how Trump will “run” it.

The US president has not ruled out deploying “boots on the ground” to Venezuela, raising the prospect of a US occupation and the possibility of another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

“Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in… Libya, Iraq or Syria?” Massie warned in his Congress speech.

“Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist. Now, it’s the same playbook, except we’re told that drugs are the WMDs.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending