Democrats can cry all they want to, Trump gets things done!
Democrats on Capitol Hill voiced sharp criticism this weekend after President Donald Trump authorized a decisive U.S. operation in Venezuela—an action that resulted in the removal of longtime leader Nicolás Maduro and immediately sparked political fallout in Washington.
Following the overnight operation, several Democrat lawmakers claimed senior officials in the Trump administration had previously downplayed the possibility of such action during classified briefings. The move marked the most direct U.S. involvement in Latin America in decades and drew predictable reactions from Trump’s political opponents.
According to Democrats, officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers in late-year briefings that there were no plans for a traditional ground invasion or an extended military campaign aimed at regime change. After Maduro’s capture, Democrats accused the administration of providing inconsistent explanations.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement arguing that Congress had not been given sufficient clarity about the administration’s long-term strategy or how potential risks would be managed.
She also claimed the White House offered “conflicting accounts” of its objectives, a charge echoed by other Democrats who said they felt frustrated by the information they received.
President Trump responded by pointing to long-standing concerns about leaks in Washington, explaining that operational secrecy was necessary to protect U.S. personnel and ensure success. “Congress does have a tendency to leak,” the president told reporters when asked why lawmakers were not briefed immediately before the operation.
In recent months, members of Congress from both parties were aware of heightened U.S. activity in the region, including maritime efforts aimed at disrupting drug trafficking networks linked to Venezuela. Democrats attended multiple briefings during that period, though many later said they were dissatisfied with the answers provided.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer previously acknowledged that briefings left unanswered questions, while Rep. Seth Moulton stated in media interviews that lawmakers were repeatedly told there would be no ground invasion or formal regime-change mission.
Republicans, however, rejected claims that Congress had been deliberately misled. GOP leaders emphasized that the operation was limited, lawful, and based on existing U.S. indictments tied to narcotics trafficking and regional security threats.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised President Trump’s decision, calling it a necessary step toward restoring accountability and enforcing U.S. law. He described the operation as a targeted effort to disrupt criminal networks that have destabilized the region for years.
Democrats have since raised constitutional concerns, arguing Congress should approve military actions beyond short-term engagements—a debate that has followed presidents of both parties for decades.
For many conservatives, the controversy highlights a familiar pattern: when President Trump acts decisively against hostile regimes tied to crime and instability, Democrats respond with outrage after the fact—despite having access to briefings, warnings, and months of regional developments.
