Former Vice President Kamala Harris weighed in following the dramatic U.S. military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, early in January 2026. Harris’s statement, issued on social media shortly after news of the operation broke, sharply criticized the action — prompting strong reactions from political allies of former President Donald Trump and reigniting partisan debate over foreign policy and executive authority.
The U.S. operation, confirmed by multiple news outlets, involved airstrikes and a special forces raid deep into Venezuela, leading to Maduro and his wife being flown to the United States to face federal charges, including narcoterrorism and drug trafficking. President Trump praised the mission’s execution and highlighted that U.S. forces suffered no casualties in the capture.
Harris’s Public Statement
In her post on X, Harris acknowledged Maduro’s reputation as a “brutal, illegitimate dictator” but argued that the manner in which the Trump administration conducted the operation was both unlawful and unwise. She wrote that Trump’s actions “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable” and suggested the move was less about combating drug trafficking or advancing democracy and more about securing economic interests — particularly oil.
Harris explicitly framed the mission as a dangerous expansion of executive power, warning that regime-change actions “sold as strength” often lead to chaos and long-term harm, particularly for average American families. She also questioned the legal basis for the raid and suggested that U.S. troops were put at unnecessary risk despite the absence of American casualties.
Focus on Oil and Strategic Interests
A significant portion of Harris’s criticism centered on motive. She and other Democratic figures asserted that if the mission were genuinely about law enforcement or curbing drug trafficking, the administration would have pursued long-standing international tools and cooperation mechanisms rather than a unilateral military strike. Harris argued that the operation resembled interventionism driven by access to Venezuela’s vast natural resources, rather than a narrowly tailored enforcement action.
Her comments echoed broader concerns among some analysts and critics that foreign military actions, especially those involving regime change, can entangle the United States in complex geopolitical and humanitarian dilemmas.
Response from Republicans and Supporters of the Operation
Republican leaders and Trump allies were quick to push back against Harris’s remarks. Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Marco Rubio called out her criticism as hypocritical, noting that during prior administrations Democrats supported actions against authoritarian leaders in Latin America and elsewhere. Rubio highlighted that the United States had previously offered large bounties — including a reported $25 million reward — for Maduro’s capture but lacked decisive action until the recent operation.
Supporters of the raid argue that removing a leader accused of narcoterrorism and drug trafficking strengthens U.S. national security and delivers long-overdue accountability to a regime they say has oppressed its people for years. They also point to the operation’s lack of U.S. military casualties as evidence of careful planning and execution.
Broader Political Fallout
Harris’s comments did not occur in a vacuum. They came amid a wave of varied reactions to the Trump administration’s intervention in Venezuela, which has drawn both praise and criticism domestically and internationally. Some international leaders condemned the U.S. action as a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and international law, while others welcomed the removal of Maduro as a step toward regional stability.
Within the U.S., the episode has deepened partisan divides over America’s role on the world stage. Democrats broadly expressed concern about bypassing diplomatic channels and questioned whether the capture sets a dangerous precedent for future foreign interventions. Republicans, by contrast, framed the successful capture as a demonstration of U.S. strength and a fulfillment of a long-stated objective to hold authoritarian leaders accountable.
Legal and Policy Questions
Aside from political debate, Harris and others raised legal questions about the constitutional authority for the operation — including whether it represented an act of war, a law enforcement action, or something in between. Critics highlighted potential tensions with international norms and the United Nations Charter, which generally prohibits the use of force across sovereign borders without clear legal justification.
Defenders of the move argue that Maduro had been indicted in U.S. federal court and that his capture was an extension of law enforcement rather than a traditional military invasion. That distinction has been central to debates over how the operation should be viewed under domestic and international law.
Harris’s Broader Foreign Policy Philosophy
Harris’s reaction is consistent with her past statements on foreign interventions. During her time as vice president and earlier in her political career, she often advocated for multilateral engagement and cautioned against unilateral military actions that lack broad international support or clear exit strategies.
Her criticism of the Maduro operation also reflects broader Democratic concerns that aggressive foreign policy moves can distract from domestic priorities and strain U.S. military resources.
Conclusion: A Divisive Moment in U.S. Politics
The capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces has become one of the defining geopolitical events of early 2026, eliciting a wide range of responses across the political spectrum. Kamala Harris’s sharp critique underscores the deep divide in American politics over the use of military force, executive power, and U.S. leadership abroad.
As Maduro faces trial in the United States and global reactions continue to evolve, the political ramifications of this episode are likely to extend well beyond immediate foreign policy debates — shaping discussions over constitutional authority, international law, and America’s role in a turbulent world.