As I stepped out of the House chamber last evening, the buzz among reporters was palpable. Speaker Mike Johnson’s forceful endorsement of President Trump’s military action in Venezuela had just hit the wires, sending ripples through Washington’s political circles.
“The President’s decisive action against the Maduro regime represents a necessary response to direct threats against American interests,” Johnson told a hastily assembled press gaggle. His voice carried the weight of someone who’d been thoroughly briefed on classified intelligence just hours earlier.
The military strike, which targeted three Venezuelan military installations near Caracas, marks a significant escalation in U.S.-Venezuela relations. Defense Department officials confirmed that the operation eliminated key command and control facilities allegedly housing Russian-supplied missile systems.
I’ve covered Capitol Hill for nearly two decades, and the partisan unity behind this action stands out as remarkably unusual in our polarized era. Johnson’s backing comes after years of Republican criticism of similar military interventions under previous administrations.
Senator Marco Rubio, long a vocal critic of the Maduro government, provided additional context during our phone conversation this morning. “What we’re seeing is the culmination of years of Venezuelan provocation and destabilizing behavior throughout the region,” Rubio explained. “The intelligence presented to congressional leadership left little room for interpretation about the imminent threat.”
The strike authorization apparently came after U.S. intelligence detected what officials describe as “advanced weapons deployment” at the targeted facilities. According to Pentagon spokesperson Admiral John Kirby, satellite imagery revealed “unmistakable evidence of offensive capabilities being positioned to threaten regional stability.”
Data from the Council on Foreign Relations indicates U.S.-Venezuela relations have deteriorated to their lowest point since 2019, with diplomatic channels effectively frozen since last November’s contested elections. Yesterday’s operation represents the first direct military engagement between the nations in modern history.
While traveling through Florida’s Venezuelan-American communities last month for a separate story, I encountered deeply divided opinions about potential U.S. intervention. Carlos Mendez, a small business owner in Doral who fled Venezuela in 2017, expressed sentiments now echoed in Johnson’s justification.
“At some point, America must recognize that Maduro only understands power,” Mendez told me while we shared coffee at his bakery. “Diplomatic efforts have failed for years.”
Not everyone shares Johnson’s assessment, however. Representative Pramila Jayapal issued a statement calling the action “dangerously provocative and potentially illegal under international law.” Her concerns about congressional authorization mirror debates that have surrounded U.S. military actions for decades.
Defense policy expert Katherine Zimmerman from the American Enterprise Institute notes the timing carries significance beyond the immediate security concerns. “This action establishes President Trump’s willingness to employ decisive military force early in his second term, sending signals not just to Venezuela but to adversaries worldwide,” she explained during our conversation yesterday evening.
Johnson’s characterization of the strikes as “proportional and targeted” appears carefully calibrated to address domestic criticism while signaling resolve internationally. The Speaker’s national security credentials, though less established than some of his predecessors, lend particular weight to his endorsement.
Polling from the Pew Research Center last quarter showed approximately 58% of Americans supported “strong measures” against the Maduro regime, though only 34% specifically endorsed military action. These numbers will likely shift as more details emerge about the intelligence that prompted the strikes.
Venezuela’s government has predictably condemned the action as “imperialist aggression,” with Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez announcing plans to bring the matter before the United Nations Security Council tomorrow. Regional reactions have been mixed, with Colombia and Brazil expressing concern while Chile and Ecuador have offered tacit support.
I spoke with a State Department official who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of ongoing diplomacy efforts. “We’re actively engaging with partners throughout Latin America to ensure they understand the intelligence that necessitated this response,” the official said. “This wasn’t a decision taken lightly.”
What makes Johnson’s endorsement particularly noteworthy is how it positions him as a key defender of the administration’s foreign policy. Having observed his evolution from relative backbencher to Speaker, I’ve watched his growing comfort with weighing in on matters beyond domestic policy.
The coming days will reveal whether this military action represents a one-time response or signals a broader shift in U.S. policy toward more interventionist approaches in the region. Either way, Johnson has clearly aligned himself with the administration’s most consequential foreign policy decision of the new term.
For now, Washington holds its collective breath, waiting to see if this strike achieves its stated objectives or triggers an escalatory cycle that could reshape Western Hemisphere relations for years to come.
