Former President Donald Trump brought the conversation about regime change in Latin America back into the spotlight, especially when it comes to Venezuela and Cuba. His last military operations in Venezuela were portrayed as an attempt to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. These fierce, ambitious moves have thrown the gauntlet down in fiery praise and hot skepticism from the media demigods or pontificating political pundits. The controversial nature of the incident has raised more than a few eyebrows and ignited a broader debate over America’s role in foreign interventions.
Mark Levin, a prominent conservative commentator, praised Trump’s military incursion into Venezuela, labeling those who questioned its legality as “pure evil.” Levin insisted that Trump’s efforts were intended to protect America’s national security interests from, as he put it, these totalitarian governments.
Now, Levin and Sean Hannity are leading the charge for an effort to instate “The Donroe Doctrine.” This initiative is being done to showcase Trump’s alleged control of all things in the Western Hemisphere. Hannity asserted that “America and the world is a safer, freer place” due to Trump’s decisive moves.
Yet on the flip side some commentators have been hesitant. Candace Owens characterized the operation as a CIA-led “hostile takeover of a country at the behest of globalist psychopaths.” She contended that this simply erodes true democratic processes and breeds instability instead of healing.
For his part, Steve Bannon resonated with Levin’s enthusiasm, calling Trump’s move “a stunning and dazzling strike” and an independent “bold and brilliant raid.” As for regime change, Tucker Carlson has historically not been on board. This time, he appeared to back Trump’s move while still expressing doubts that these interventions will lead to the desired outcome.
As Carlson noted when commenting on the complicated realities of foreign interventions, the whole exercise is often counter-productive at best. He stated, “Let me get this straight: we go to a country, we capture their leader, we bomb it, and then we say, ‘We run this country now.’ And that is not war.” His concerns were a mirror image of Kat Timpf’s. She challenged the rationale behind treating transnational drug trafficking as acts of war. She noted, “I hope I’m wrong. I hope this is suddenly the one regime change that works out well for us and for the people we are supposed to be rescuing, but we do not have a very good track record.”
The contrasting sentiments from people such as Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who warned of hasty actions in Venezuela, were promising. His concerns illustrate a deeper fear among many regarding the consequences of U.S. military engagement.
In the midst of these discussions, Ben Shapiro defended Trump’s actions, describing him as “a conservative Republican president, a gutsy president, who makes the calls to preserve America’s national security and her foreign interests.” Shapiro’s response really underscores the chasm in conservatism over accepting or rejecting Trump’s moves on foreign policy.
Critics and supporters weigh in on the MoveNY plan Publications like The New York Post provided their own accolades and critiques. Even back at HQ, the NYT editorial board hailed “Operation Absolute Resolve” as “stunningly successful.” They commended the professionalism of the U.S. servicemen and women who were central to the operation.
With those changes have come dissenting voices within that media landscape. Megyn Kelly criticized the coverage surrounding Trump’s actions as overly propagandistic, stating, “I turned on Fox News yesterday, and I’m sorry, but it was like watching Russian propaganda.” Her comments reflect a deeper concern among more hawkish commentators about going along with Trump’s militaristic impulses.
Indeed, the media coverage of Trump’s Venezuela policy has divided along ideological lines, mirroring deeper fissures within the political and media elites. Critics laud his high-profile decisions as key to restoring U.S. security interests. Other commentators have cautioned against the dangers of military intervention.