Listen to the article
In a heated political clash over U.S. foreign policy, Florida Republican Representative Mike Haridopolos has sharply criticized Democrats’ opposition to the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela, calling their response the “definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Haridopolos, who represents Florida’s central coastline region, pointed to what he sees as hypocrisy in Democratic criticism. “It doesn’t take much research to find speech after speech of Democrat House members and Senate members who said that this guy is a bad guy, he should be taken out of power,” he told Fox News Digital.
The congressman argued that political divisions have prevented Democrats from acknowledging the operation’s merits. “Sometimes in politics, you’ve just got to say to the other side, politically, ‘Hey, we’re all Americans. This is in the best interest, clearly, of the United States,'” Haridopolos said. He suggested Democrats are “so afraid of a Democrat primary that they will say anything to avoid having the extreme left attack them.”
Haridopolos specifically highlighted the previous administration’s actions regarding Venezuela, noting that President Joe Biden had increased the federal government’s bounty for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s capture to $25 million. “What did they expect was then going to happen? You think this guy was just going to voluntarily give up?” he questioned.
The Florida congressman emphasized the strategic threat posed by Maduro’s regime, citing its relationships with adversarial powers. “He was getting into bed with the Cubans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, even Hezbollah, as I understand. I mean, this guy was trying to create a group of enemies in an oil-rich state at our footstep,” Haridopolos explained.
The capture of Maduro has created a stark partisan divide in Washington. Democratic lawmakers have largely criticized President Donald Trump and his administration, with some accusing them of illegal actions that violated the U.S. Constitution. More progressive voices have even suggested the operation could constitute impeachable offenses.
In contrast, Republican lawmakers, including Haridopolos, have praised the operation as a necessary law enforcement action against a hostile actor threatening both U.S. and regional security interests. They’ve emphasized that the mission was executed with no U.S. casualties and relatively few among Maduro’s supporters in Venezuela.
For Haridopolos, the issue is also personal due to his constituency. “I have a large population of Venezuelans within my community, and they are absolutely overjoyed,” he said. The congressman explained that many of these residents “were in essence kicked out of their own country or fled through fear…because they lost their ability to make a living, or they were being terrorized by the government because they were anti-Maduro.”
Venezuela, once among South America’s wealthiest nations due to its vast oil reserves, has experienced economic collapse and political turmoil under Maduro’s leadership. His government has faced international condemnation for human rights abuses, election irregularities, and economic mismanagement that has led to one of the largest refugee crises in recent history, with millions of Venezuelans fleeing the country.
Following the U.S. military operation, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were transported to New York City, where they face prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York on various charges. Maduro entered a not guilty plea during his initial court appearance on Monday.
The capture represents a significant moment in U.S.-Venezuela relations and marks a dramatic shift in American foreign policy toward the South American nation. While the operation’s immediate impact has been felt politically in Washington, its long-term implications for Venezuela, regional stability, and U.S. relationships throughout Latin America remain to be seen.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


12 Comments
The congressman’s comments seem to lean heavily on partisan rhetoric. While I respect his perspective, I’d be curious to hear a more balanced analysis of the policy considerations at play. There are valid arguments on multiple sides of this issue.
Well said. Avoiding knee-jerk partisan reactions and focusing on the substance of the policies would make for a more constructive dialogue.
While I understand the congressman’s perspective, I’m not convinced that the Democrats’ opposition to the Venezuela operation is purely politically motivated. There may be legitimate concerns about the legality and strategic merits of the action that deserve serious consideration.
Good point. Dismissing the other side’s arguments as partisan posturing often prevents a nuanced understanding of complex geopolitical issues.
It’s interesting to see the political divide over the Venezuela situation. While I can understand the desire for bipartisanship, it’s also important to critically examine the merits of any military action. I hope the discussion can move beyond partisan grandstanding.
I agree, nuance and objectivity are needed here. This shouldn’t be just about scoring political points.
This debate highlights the ongoing tension between national security priorities and partisan politics. I hope our elected leaders can find a way to rise above the partisan fray and engage in a thoughtful, evidence-based discussion about the appropriate U.S. role in Venezuela.
Absolutely. Putting aside political differences to focus on the substance of the issue should be the goal, even if it’s challenging.
It’s concerning to see such strong political polarization around foreign policy issues. Regardless of party affiliation, I hope our elected officials can work together to find solutions that prioritize America’s interests and uphold our values on the global stage.
Agreed. Putting country before party should be the guiding principle, especially on matters of national security and foreign relations.
The congressman’s comments seem to reflect a familiar pattern of political finger-pointing rather than a substantive analysis of the policy considerations. I would encourage a more nuanced and balanced perspective that considers the complexities of the situation in Venezuela.
Well said. Promoting constructive dialogue and avoiding partisan rhetoric is crucial for addressing these types of foreign policy challenges.