President Trump’s abrupt move to attack Venezuela, oust its leader and seize its oil has thrust Republicans in Congress into an awkward spot, leaving them with major unanswered questions and toiling to reconcile their positions with his rapidly evolving whims and messages about what should come next.
At issue is not whether capturing President Nicolás Maduro was the right move. Republicans have almost universally cheered Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Venezuela and welcomed the military raid that removed Mr. Maduro and his wife and sent them to the United States to face criminal charges.
But many Republicans have tied themselves in knots over the past few days to avoid contradicting or seeming to criticize Mr. Trump while confronting major questions about who should govern Venezuela, whether Washington is pursuing regime change there and how deeply involved the United States should be — and for how long — in shaping the country’s future.
“We are not at war,” Speaker Mike Johnson said on Monday. “We do not have U.S. armed forces in Venezuela, and we are not occupying that country.”
He rejected the suggestion that the United States was engaging in nation-building there. “This is not a regime change,” he said. “This is a demand for a change of behavior by a regime.”
Mr. Trump, though, made no such distinction.
Hours after the raid, he said at a news conference on Saturday that the United States would “run the country” until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” of power could be arranged, raising the prospect of an open-ended military commitment. He did not say whether U.S. forces would occupy Venezuela, although he added that he was not afraid of “boots on the ground.”
In an interview with The Atlantic, the president said that “rebuilding there, and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”
The dissonance is unlikely to translate into a meaningful Republican break with the White House. Despite some misgivings about the administration’s messaging and uncertainty around its objectives, few Republicans appear poised to side with Democrats this week on a resolution that would require Mr. Trump to seek congressional authorization before any further military action in Venezuela.
But the conflicting messages are the latest and perhaps starkest example of how Republicans in Congress have labored to adapt to foreign policy in the age of Mr. Trump, when the party’s hawkish bent has been replaced by an “America First” aversion to overseas military action — except when the president decides otherwise.
In Mr. Trump’s Washington, foreign policy positions change quickly, and red lines can be erased or redrawn if the circumstances demand it. It has left some Republicans in Congress at pains to get on the same page with a White House that pivots quickly and seemingly without concern for whether the shifts could unsettle or alienate voters.
“MAGA loves it. MAGA loves what I’m doing. MAGA loves everything I do,” Mr. Trump told NBC News when asked about how his political base would respond to the moves in Venezuela. “MAGA is me. MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”
Yet the operation in Venezuela has exposed unmistakable cracks in his coalition. Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Republican who resigned on Monday, slammed the operation as “what many in MAGA thought they voted to end.”
Other Republicans have raised sharp questions about what will come next.
For years, three South Florida Republicans — Representatives Mario Díaz-Balart, Maria Elvira Salazar and Carlos Gimenez — have promoted María Corina Machado, the Nobel Prize-winning opposition leader, as the alternative to Mr. Maduro, describing her as the rightful leader of a democratic Venezuela. The three introduced a resolution recognizing Ms. Machado as the legitimate opposition presidential candidate, and Senator Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican, introduced a similar one.
Yet Mr. Trump has opted to allow Delcy Rodríguez, Mr. Maduro’s vice president and longtime confidante, to become the interim president of Venezuela. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Ms. Machado had soured, and his top advisers argued that Ms. Rodríguez would provide the continuity needed to keep the country functioning. The decision has unsettled Republicans who have spent years portraying Mr. Maduro and his lieutenants as illegitimate.
“She was never a duly elected vice president,” Mr. Scott said on Tuesday. “She was part of Maduro’s stealing of the election.” He cautioned that her leadership was conditional, saying, “She’s going to do what President Trump wants, or she won’t be in the position.”
Mr. Scott expressed optimism that Ms. Machado would eventually be elected to lead the country.
Mr. Trump has appeared less interested in a future where Ms. Machado leads a democratic Venezuela. He has, so far, not spoken with her and over the weekend publicly cast doubt on her political viability.
“I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,” he said at a news conference hours after Mr. Maduro’s capture. “She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country,” he added.
Beyond uncertainty over future leadership, questions about the nature of U.S. involvement have divided Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House. In the immediate aftermath of the raid, which the Trump administration carried out without informing congressional leaders or top intelligence lawmakers, Republican leaders in the House and Senate tried to keep expectations narrow.
Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Monday that the operation was not “protracted” but a limited, swift action that did not resemble other interventions.
Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican who had initially raised constitutional concerns about the justification for a military raid carried out without congressional authorization, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said that he anticipated “no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in U.S. custody.”
But that was hours before Mr. Trump said the United States would “run” Venezuela. And in the days since, the president has repeatedly described American involvement as open-ended.
In remarks to NBC News on Monday, he suggested that elections would not occur anytime soon and that stabilizing Venezuela could take a long time, signaling a lengthy U.S. presence in the oil-rich South American country.
That contrast has unsettled lawmakers across the Republican Party. Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she hoped a briefing by the administration scheduled for all senators on Wednesday would provide more clarity.
“I want to know what the plan is,” she said. “I don’t understand what the president means when he says that we will, quote, run Venezuela. The Venezuelans ought to run Venezuela.”
Others have tried to strike a middle ground. Senator Jim Justice of West Virginia said that he was “unbelievably in favor of what the president did” and supported limited involvement in which the United States would serve as “the guiding light and not maybe the controlling light.”
Even senators normally inclined to reflexively defend Mr. Trump have been cautious.
Asked whether the United States was pursuing regime change, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said that it was “too early to tell.”
Robert Jimison covers Congress for The Times, with a focus on defense issues and foreign policy.
The post Trump’s Venezuela Moves Pose a Challenge for G.O.P. in Congress appeared first on New York Times.
