President Trump's decision to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro through military action has garnered support from Republican leaders but also sparked skepticism and opposition from some U.S. elected officials across the political spectrum. A small contingent of Republican House members and GOP Senators voiced concerns, questioning the legality and wisdom of the intervention.

While most conservative lawmakers publicly backed Trump's actions, dissenting voices emerged within the Republican party. These officials argued that the President should have sought Congressional approval before initiating military action. "If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives are put at risk," one Republican Senator stated, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The invasion of Venezuela occurred on Saturday, January 3, 2026, when U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The move followed escalating tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, fueled by accusations of Maduro's authoritarian rule and alleged human rights abuses. The Trump administration had previously imposed sanctions on Venezuela and recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country's legitimate president.

The legal basis for the U.S. military intervention remains a point of contention. Critics argue that the action violates international law and the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to declare war. Supporters of the intervention contend that it was necessary to protect U.S. national security interests and promote democracy in the region.

The situation in Venezuela remains fluid. The U.S. has installed an interim government, but it faces resistance from Maduro loyalists. The international community is divided, with some countries condemning the U.S. intervention and others supporting it. The long-term consequences of the U.S. action for Venezuela and the region are uncertain.