Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie is doubling down on his vicious attacks against President Donald Trump following the bold U.S. strike on Venezuela and the swift arrest of socialist tyrant Nicolás Maduro.
Massie has spent the weekend unloading a barrage of attacks against Donald Trump, questioning both the legality and the strategic intent of the operation, language that mirrors nearly verbatim the criticism coming from the radical left and the corporate media.
Hours after the successful strike and capture of Maduro, Massie took to social media to accuse the Trump administration of deception and imperial ambition.
“AG and others legally characterize attack in Venezuela as ‘arrest with military support.’ Meanwhile Trump announces he’s taken over the country and will run it until he finds someone suitable to replace him. Added bonus: says American oil companies will get to exploit the oil.”
Massie went further, suggesting internal inconsistency within the administration:
“Trump also announced he’s ready to attack Venezuela militarily with a second wave if needed. Doesn’t seem the least bit consistent with the earlier characterization by the @AGPamBondi, or the one given to @BasedMikeLee by @SecRubio.”
Trump also announced he’s ready to attack Venezuela militarily with a second wave if needed. Doesn’t seem the least bit consistent with the earlier characterization by the @AGPamBondi, or the one given to @BasedMikeLee by @SecRubio. https://t.co/dQYvSy5vBe
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 3, 2026
Massie then invoked the Constitution in an attempt to undermine the Executive Branch’s authority.
“In the Constitution, the Founders vested war making power in Congress, not the Executive branch.”
Accompanied on the post was a clip from December 17, where he delivered a lengthy floor speech attacking the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy in apocalyptic terms, invoking James Madison, comparing the operation to Iraq and Libya.
Massie painted a doomsday scenario of “swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans who will likely become refugees” and “billions in American treasure” leading to a “miniature Afghanistan in the Western hemisphere.”
He dismissed the administration’s focus on narco-terrorism, claiming: “If it were about drugs, we’d bomb Mexico or China or Colombia… This is about oil and regime change.”
Massie: “Mr. Speaker, James Madison warned us that in no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature and not the executive. Madison called it the crown jewel of Congress. The framers understood a simple truth: to the extent that war-making power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves.
If the President believes military action against Venezuela is justified and needed, he should make the case, and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America. Let’s be honest about the likely outcomes. Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?
Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs—weapons of mass destruction—that did not exist. Now it’s the same playbook, except we’re told that drugs are the WMDs.
If it were about drugs, we’d bomb Mexico, or China, or Colombia. And the President would not have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández. This is about oil and regime change. And when it comes to regime change, we’ve already been down this road with Venezuela, with nothing to show for it.
In 2019, we recognized Juan Guaidó. We seized their embassy here in Washington, D.C. We were told that regime change was imminent. Years later, Maduro remains in power.
Today, we’re told to place our hopes in other exiled figures: Edmundo González and María Corina Machado. I wish them well—I do. But Congress should not express moral sympathy in the form of a blank check for military escalation paid for with American lives.
Let’s also take a moment to acknowledge the contradiction at the heart of this policy. This administration tells us that the Maduro regime is made up of narco-terrorists, and by escalating toward war, we would predictably create countless refugees. At the same time, this administration has moved to end Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and deport them back to the very regime it condemns.
So which is it? Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans who will likely become refugees, and spend billions in American treasure to destroy—and inevitably rebuild—that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere? If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as the voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution.
And yet today, here we are not even voting on whether to declare war or authorize the use of military force. All we’re voting on is a War Powers Resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic…”
In the Constitution, the Founders vested war making power in Congress, not the Executive branch.pic.twitter.com/rzZo6vhdeI
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 3, 2026
Massie also took aim at Vice President JD Vance on Sunday, rejecting the administration’s position that Venezuelan oil seized from a narco-terrorist regime could rightly be considered stolen property.
“It’s not American oil. It’s Venezuelan oil. Oil companies entered into risky deals to develop oil, and the deals were canceled by a prior Venezuelan government. What’s happening: lives of U.S. soldiers are being risked to make those oil companies (not Americans) more profitable.”
Massie’s remarks were a direct response to a lengthy statement from Vance on X, in which the vice president defended the administration’s actions.
Vance pushed back on claims that Venezuela is irrelevant to drug trafficking, citing cocaine exports as a major revenue stream for Latin American cartels and arguing that cutting off those profits would weaken organized crime networks.
He also maintained that fentanyl has historically flowed through Venezuela and emphasized the administration’s aggressive border policies toward Mexico.
On the oil issue, Vance asserted that Venezuela expropriated American oil property roughly two decades ago and used those assets to fund narcoterrorist activities.
VP Vance: “You see a lot claims that Venezuela has nothing to do with drugs because most of the fentanyl comes from elsewhere. I want to address this:
First off, fentanyl isn’t the only drug in the world and there is still fentanyl coming from Venezuela (or at least there was).
Second, cocaine, which is the main drug trafficked out of Venezuela, is a profit center for all of the Latin America cartels. If you cut out the money from cocaine (or even reduce it) you substantially weaken the cartels overall. Also, cocaine is bad too!
Third, yes, a lot of fentanyl is coming out of Mexico. That continues to be a focus of our policy in Mexico and is a reason why President Trump shut the border on day one.
Fourth, I see a lot of criticism about oil. About 20 years ago, Venezuela expropriated American oil property and until recently used that stolen property to get rich and fund their narcoterrorist activities. I understand the anxiety over the use of military force, but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing? Great powers don’t act like that.
The United States, thanks to President Trump’s leadership, is a great power again. Everyone should take note.”
It’s not American oil. It’s Venezuelan oil.
Oil companies entered into risky deals to develop oil, and the deals were canceled by a prior Venezuelan government.
What’s happening: lives of US soldiers are being risked to make those oil companies (not Americans) more profitable. https://t.co/L8GVYt6g5l
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 4, 2026
On Sunday, Massie escalated again, claiming that the administration coordinated with major U.S. oil companies before the operation and “couldn’t be bothered to consult Congress.”
“It seems obvious from this video that the administration worked with big U.S. oil companies before the attack to line up billions of dollars in capital for developing Venezuela’s oil reserves, yet they couldn’t be bothered to consult Congress.”
It seems obvious from this video that the administration worked with big U.S. oil companies before the attack to line up billions of dollars in capital for developing Venezuela’s oil reserves, yet they couldn’t be bothered to consult Congress. pic.twitter.com/6SXmyru2JB
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 4, 2026
In another post, he then invoked an AI chatbot to advance a personal political grievance, alleging that hedge fund billionaire and Republican donor Paul Singer stands to profit from his investment in CITGO, and claiming Singer has spent heavily to defeat him politically.
“According to Grok, Paul Singer, globalist Republican mega-donor who’s already spent $1,000,000 to defeat me in the next election, stands to make billions of dollars on his distressed CITGO investment, now that this administration has taken over Venezuela.”
According to Grok, Paul Singer, globalist Republican mega-donor who’s already spent $1,000,000 to defeat me in the next election, stands to make billions of dollars on his distressed CITGO investment, now that this administration has taken over Venezuela.https://t.co/hq1STlEyAq
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 4, 2026
The post Thomas Massie Joins the Left in Attacking President Trump Over Venezuela Strike and Arrest of Dictator Maduro appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.