Connect with us

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

World

Social media operation linked to Iran manipulated public through fake Irish and Scottish profiles

Published

on

Researchers say that social media accounts affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps posed as Scottish and Irish nationals in order to cultivate their following, before switching their narrative to spread pro-Iranian discourse online.

Continue Reading

World

Trump Says Iran Has Agreed to Not Have a Nuclear Weapon

Published

on

Trump Says Iran Has Agreed to Not Have a Nuclear Weapon
June 3 (Reuters) – ⁠U.S. ⁠President ⁠Donald Trump said on Wednesday ‌that Iran ‌has ⁠agreed ⁠to not have a nuclear weapon and that Iran’s Ayatollah ⁠is involved ⁠in ⁠negotiations with the United States. “They’ve already agreed ⁠they’re not ⁠going to have a nuclear weapon,” ⁠Trump told a podcast …
Continue Reading

World

Trump expands Cuba sanctions beyond US companies in major crackdown on foreign enablers

Published

on

Trump expands Cuba sanctions beyond US companies in major crackdown on foreign enablers

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Trump administration is rolling out what experts describe as the most significant expansion of U.S. sanctions on Cuba in decades.

The administration is attempting what supporters say is the first broad application of Cuba-related secondary sanctions against foreign firms, aiming not only at Havana itself but also at foreign companies and banks that continue doing business with the island’s military-linked economic empire. 

The new framework, established under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump May 1, applies pressure beyond U.S. companies for the first time, threatening foreign firms with sanctions exposure if they continue operating in key sectors of the Cuban economy linked to Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A., or GAESA.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PRESSED TO CLOSE CUBA EMBARGO LOOPHOLE AS OIL SET TO RUN OUT WITHIN DAYS

Advertisement

Supporters say the move closes a loophole that allowed foreign investors to sustain Cuba’s communist regime while the longstanding U.S. embargo largely restricted Americans.

Critics argue the measures risk worsening an already severe humanitarian crisis on the island without meaningfully weakening the government.

Demonstrators attempt to burn the Communist Party headquarters in Morón, Cuba, after authorities allegedly opened fire on protesters without warning. (Obtained by Fox News Digital)

“At the top of the month, what the Trump administration did was for the first time extend the application of U.S. sanctions from just prohibiting trade between U.S. firms and U.S. persons and the Cuban island to third-party countries and enablers,” Max Meizlish, a former Treasury Department official now serving as a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

“For the first time ever in a truly unprecedented fashion, that’s the same logic that the administration is now applying to Cuba,” he said.

Advertisement

The sanctions focus heavily on GAESA, a sprawling military-linked conglomerate that analysts estimate controls between 40% and 70% of Cuba’s economy, including tourism, mining, retail, ports and financial services. 

A recent Foundation for Defense of Democracies report authored by Meizlish and Connor Pfeiffer argued that foreign companies doing business in Cuba are effectively helping sustain the regime’s military and political leadership.

TRUMP DECLARES NATIONAL EMERGENCY OVER CUBA, THREATENS TARIFFS ON NATIONS THAT SUPPLY OIL TO COMMUNIST REGIME

An image of Fidel and Raul Castro and Miguel Diaz-Canel, Cuba’s president and first secretary of the Communist Party, is displayed in a billboard in Havana, April 12, 2023. (Alexandre Meneghini/Reuters)

The State Department sanctioned GAESA and several affiliated entities in May under the new authorities, opening the door for potential penalties against foreign companies and financial institutions that continue dealings with them after a June 5 wind-down deadline.

Advertisement

Meizlish argued previous sanctions regimes failed because they isolated American companies while allowing foreign actors to continue financing the Cuban state.

“There’s a lot of Spanish firms, for instance, that have invested millions of dollars in luxury hotel properties, villa properties in Cuba that partner with GAESA, all funding this military enterprise at the expense of the Cuban people,” he said.

He also pointed to Canadian involvement in Cuba’s nickel and cobalt sectors, saying foreign investment has generated “huge amounts of money for the regime.”

“A lot of people think about the U.S. embargo over the years is actually being responsible for a lot of the problems on the Cuban island, but they don’t give consideration to the fact that GAESA, this newly sanctioned entity, has been sitting on an estimated $20 billion in assets and cash over the year while depriving the people of Cuba,” Meizlish told Fox News Digital.

But critics of the policy warn the economic fallout could land the hardest on ordinary Cubans.

Advertisement

William LeoGrande, a longtime Cuba expert at American University, said the May 1 measures represent a major escalation because they specifically target foreign businesses rather than just Americans and aim to deter foreign companies from doing business with GAESA by threatening sanctions exposure.

LeoGrande acknowledged the measures could deprive the Cuban government of revenue but argued the broader population is likely to suffer most.

CUBA’S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL GRID COLLAPSES, LEAVING WHOLE ISLAND WITHOUT POWER

A woman with her son signals a car on a dark street during a blackout in Bauta municipality, Artemisa province, Cuba, on March 18, 2024. (Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images)

“This would potentially deprive the Cuban government of funds, but the impact will fall mainly on ordinary citizens because it means the government has fewer resources to import food, medicine and fuel,” he said.

Advertisement

The debate comes as Cuba faces its deepest economic and humanitarian crisis in years. 

The World Food Programme says food insecurity is worsening amid fuel shortages, inflation and declining access to imported goods, while U.N. officials have warned that electricity shortages and blackouts are disrupting hospitals, vaccination programs and food distribution networks across the island.

LeoGrande also warned tougher sanctions could contribute to another migration crisis.

NICARAGUA BLOCKS PATHWAY USED BY CUBAN MIGRANTS TO REACH THE US

Protesters take to the streets in Cuba over food and electricity shortages.  (Reuters)

Advertisement

“Another unintended effect is that by making living conditions in Cuba even more desperate, tougher sanctions could trigger a mass migration like we saw in 1980 or 1994,” LeoGrande said.

On background, a U.S. official rejected arguments that American sanctions are responsible for Cuba’s humanitarian crisis.

“The suffering of the Cuban people is not caused by the U.S. embargo but by the Cuban dictatorship’s failed Communist policies and human rights violations,” the official told Fox News Digital. “The embargo does not prohibit Cuba’s access to world markets or trade with third countries.”

The official added that U.S. law explicitly permits exports of food, medicine and medical equipment to Cuba and accused the regime of hiding “billions in overseas bank accounts instead of investing in electricity, infrastructure and the daily needs of its people.”

The debate mirrors long-standing arguments surrounding U.S. sanctions on countries like Iran and Venezuela, where supporters view economic pressure as a tool to weaken authoritarian governments while critics argue regimes often survive and civilians absorb the economic damage.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Meizlish argued sanctions should not be judged simply by whether they immediately topple governments.

“The problem isn’t that the embargo went too far,” he said. “It’s that it didn’t go far enough.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the Cuban Embassy in Washington for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending