The Trump administration has defended the strike by accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his government of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. But critics say the operation lacked congressional authorization and relied on “made-up” justifications.
Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener, of San Francisco, is among those calling for President Trump’s impeachment.
“This invasion is not because Trump cares about Venezuelans,” Wiener said. “He doesn’t care about Venezuelans. He cares about getting their oil. He cares about his own power. That’s all this is about, and that’s all it’s ever about with Donald Trump.”
Wiener argued that even though Maduro is widely viewed as an authoritarian leader, the U.S. military action crossed a line.
“Maduro is horrible, just to be clear. He’s horrible,” Wiener added. “I’m not defending Maduro in any way. He helped drag Venezuela down. But Venezuela has not done anything that would justify the U.S. invading and conquering it.”
He also suggested the strike serves as a political distraction for Trump’s political troubles — falling approval ratings, rising health care costs and the president’s connection to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
And while Wiener supports the use of economic pressure — including sanctions — to deal with dictators like Maduro, he strongly opposes military intervention.
“But when we talk about the U.S. invading and occupying, that’s a very different thing,” he said. “That didn’t work in Iraq, didn’t work in Afghanistan and it’s not going to work here.”
Ami Bera, a Democrat who represents parts of Sacramento and Rancho Cordova, said the administration's actions raise serious constitutional questions and bypass Congress’ authority over military force.
Bera, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said lawmakers were briefed by the Trump administration during the recent holiday breaks and were explicitly told that no ground operation was planned.
“The week before we went on the holiday recess, the administration briefed us,” Bera said. “We asked directly if there were going to be any attacks on land, and they absolutely misled us. So what they did is a real heinous disregard for the authority of Congress.”
Bera said Congress will be demanding answers about the administration's long-term plans in Venezuela, particularly after President Trump suggested the U.S. could temporarily “run” Venezuela. Bera warned that such rhetoric could imply U.S. troops being deployed.
“I don't see a scenario based on what the president has said, that they will run the country temporarily that doesn't put troops on boots on the ground, puts America's men and women, our boys and girls in harm's way,” Bera said. “That is absolutely unthinkable without Congress giving them authority to do that.”
Bera said he expects congressional hearings and investigations into how the operation was planned, and to ensure Venezuela’s future is secure.
“We're at a delicate moment in time here. I would urge the administration to come to Congress to work with us to get our most senior diplomats at the table thinking about what the scenarios are and find a smooth transition.”
Supporters applauded the mission and Maduro’s removal. In a statement, Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley, of Rocklin, called it an opportunity for Venezuelans to once again enjoy democracy, freedom and prosperity.
Sacramento protest
The strikes also prompted a protest in downtown Sacramento, where about 100 people gathered near Memorial Auditorium as part of a nationwide day of demonstrations opposing U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.
Tahnee Sweeney, an activist with the ANSWER Coalition, said the protest focused on opposition to what organizers described as violations of international law.
“The U.S. government has no right to kidnap the president of another country,” Sweeney said. “This is a gross violation of international law and the United Nations Charter.”
Sweeney said her organization views the operation as part of a broader pattern of U.S. military intervention.
“The U.S. government has no right to kidnap the president of another country,” she said. “We are out here to say no war for oil and no war in Venezuela.”
Isaac Quezada, an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, said the protest also reflected frustration over how government resources are being used.
“We’re against this invasion of Venezuela,” Quezada said. “American people are struggling, the workers are struggling, but we got the funds to spend on these kind of pointless attacks, pointless wars.”
Quezada said that protesting did not mean support for Maduro.
“Regardless of how you feel about Maduro, you should not be okay with a foreign country going in to overthrow a government,” he said.
Quezada also said the conflict has heightened anxiety among Venezuelan immigrants and others in the U.S. who fear being sent back to a destabilized country.
“We don’t want to be forced back to a place that is currently being attacked,” he said.
Immigrant concerns
Giselle Garcia is the program director for NorCal Resist, a nonprofit that serves Venezuelan immigrants and others at risk of deportation. She said many of the people they work with learned about the strikes through friends and family still in Venezuela.
“What they’ve been expressing is this profound confusion,” Giselle said regarding the individuals her organization supports. “A confusion about, ‘How could this happen?’ But also there’s this profound fear for their loved ones there. A couple of them have also expressed guilt that they’re here and their families are stuck back there.”
Garcia said that while many Venezuelans opposed Maduro and his regime, its reported removal does little to address the conditions that forced people to flee in the first place, such as hyperinflation and poverty.