By Staff, Agencies

US President Donald Trump’s suggestion of an upcoming land strike on Venezuela has shaken the America First movement, creating sharp divisions among supporters who oppose foreign wars.

His remarks echo debates from the early 2000s over the Iraq invasion — the “forever wars” his base rejects.

Trump hinted not only at a Venezuela intervention but also potential action against other states, alarming anti-interventionists who warn that removing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro could drag the US into a long conflict, destabilize the region, and damage both Trump’s legacy and his movement’s political identity.

Despite Trump’s past criticism of US military entanglements, several Republican allies are now defending the possibility of force.

They argue that operations within the Western Hemisphere are easier to justify than past West Asia interventions, insisting the goal is not full “regime change” but a shift in leadership without restructuring Venezuela’s political system.

Alex Gray, former National Security Council chief of staff, said Trump is not trying to dictate foreign governments but is refocusing strategy on “core American interests,” portraying Venezuela as central to hemispheric security.

At the same time, the administration continues leveling unsubstantiated accusations, labeling Maduro the head of a “drug cartel.”

Large US deployments — including a carrier strike group and around 15,000 troops — combined with Trump’s private ultimatum to Maduro last week have heightened expectations of imminent action. According to individuals briefed on the call, Trump demanded Maduro step down or face unspecified “consequences.”

One insider described Trump as the driving force behind the initiative: “No one is more bullish than the president on this.”