To the surprise of no one, Democrats reflexively denounced Trump’s daring middle-of-the-night grab of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife.  

If Joe Biden, who offered a $25 million reward for Maduro’s arrest, had done what Trump did, these same politicians would be organizing a ticker-tape parade.  

Their condemnation of Trump has nothing to do with the law, although they pretend that it does. Instead, it is transparently driven by their contempt for a president that they despise.

Bereft of reason, they oppose whatever Trump does even if it conforms to their previously expressed beliefs.

Almost in unison, Democrats decried Trump’s action as ‘illegal,’ ‘unjustified’ and ‘unconstitutional.’ Many insisted that he was required to seek permission from Congress.  

None of that happens to be true. 

Inherent Constitutional Authority

The president is empowered by the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief of the armed forces to direct military action to protect Americans, fortify U.S. interests and defend our national security.  

The scourge of drugs emanating from Venezuela has long been poisoning our citizens. Our government estimates that roughly 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine is shipped out of the Latin American country annually. America, by virtue of its prosperity, is a favored destination.  

On this basis alone, the incursion into Caracas was legal, justified, and legitimate.

For years, Maduro has led the notorious Cartel de los Soles, a violent drug cartel that is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization responsible for murders, torture and crimes against humanity so egregious that even the United Nations recognized it.

Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution vests inherent powers in the president to unilaterally order armed forces into military actions. His command authority is supreme, and he may conduct campaigns and deploy operations by his own judgment.  

Short of a formal declaration of war, a president does not need prior authorization from Congress to act. That principle is embedded in our Constitution and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since the early founding of our Republic.

In more modern times, the president’s authority over armed action has only expanded. Cases involving Truman, Clinton and Obama solidified presidential power to direct military operations without congressional consent. 

Trump had every legal and constitutional right to defend the United States against the transport of deadly illicit drugs and to arrest the man most responsible, who has been federally indicted for numerous crimes. 

And no, Trump did not violate the War Powers Act as some of his critics have alleged. The resolution that was passed in 1973 stipulates a reporting requirement to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities. It is not a prohibition to act.

Indeed, it implicitly recognizes a president’s inherent power to use military force without specific congressional approval. Every single American president has done so since the end of World War II.  Trump is no exception.  

The ‘Take Care Clause’

The president has another authority at his disposal. The ‘Take Care Clause’ in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’

To put it simply, Trump is duty-bound to ensure that all federal statutes are enforced. This includes the apprehension, arrest, and prosecution of wanted fugitives who are criminally charged with U.S. crimes and must be brought to justice.

Effectuating the arrest of Maduro qualifies as enforcing all laws. Just because the accused is the de facto head of state in another country does not afford him protection or immunity from the long arm of American law. That is written nowhere. 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Maduro as ‘a fugitive of American justice.’ Given his armed protection, military troops were necessary to accomplish his arrest. According to Trump, the ‘operation was done in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement.’

This was also the case in 1990 under nearly identical circumstances.    

Then-President George H. W. Bush ordered the military to capture Manuel Noriega, the corrupt dictator of Panama who was indicted on drug trafficking charges and endangering U.S. citizens. After a surprise military operation in the country’s capital, he was taken into custody and spirited back to the U.S. for trial.

Noriega’s legal team of defense attorneys vigorously challenged both his arrest and America’s legal authority to try him. Those maneuvers failed, along with his various claims of immunity. He was convicted and imprisoned.

So, we’ve seen this movie before. Maduro’s lawyers will mount the same legal challenges. But if the past is prologue, there is little reason to believe that the ending will be any different.  

This leaves the rather vacant claim by Trump adversaries that his actions somehow violated the norms and customs of international law. It is a common accusation that is often lacking in substance.  

Some point to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits member nations from ‘the use of force against the territorial integrity’ of any state. However, the Charter provides an exception for self-defense.

As evidenced by the charges stated in Madura’s indictment, his actions as a narco-terrorist flooding the U.S. with deadly drugs fully justifies Trump’s actions as defensive in nature. Continued drug trafficking posed an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens.

If a conflict of American versus international law exists, our president’s obligations under Article II of the Constitution takes precedence and priority over Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Members of the United Nations can complain all they want, but the U.S. has veto power in the UN Security Council.           

Most Venezuelans seem relieved that the long nightmare of tyranny, oppression and death at the hands Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro is finally over. Their land is rich with the world’s largest oil reserves.

If free and fair elections are held, as they should be, the impoverished citizens of this proud nation can share in a brighter future of freedom, economic recovery and financial prosperity.

They will have President Trump to thank for that.

For three years, the Washington foreign policy establishment has insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia achieved through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support and escalation readiness regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing — and real leadership demands confronting reality as it exists, not as we wish it to be.

I write this not as an academic or pundit, but as someone who worked at the center of this conflict. As U.S. ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump tasked me with bringing Europe into alignment — truly into alignment — behind Ukraine. 

That meant ending the EU’s habitual double-game: proclaiming solidarity with Kyiv while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and dragging its feet on serious sanctions. I saw firsthand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent Moscow exactly the wrong message. It told President Vladimir Putin the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principle. That perception was part of his calculus.

The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. Europe’s defense industries remain underbuilt. American stockpiles are finite. And while Russia has paid a staggering price, it has not collapsed, surrendered or reversed course. Worse, every escalation increases the probability of something unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. That would not be ‘just another step’ on the escalatory ladder; it would fundamentally shatter global stability.

Against that background, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-business resolution is not weakness. It is classic realpolitik — recognition that the job of American leadership is to maximize U.S. security, economic leverage and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risk.

Business leaders know what Washington too often does not: the perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can achieve a morally pure resolution; it is whether we can lock in outcomes that are measurably better for American interests — and for Ukraine — than a perpetual, bleeding stalemate.

A negotiated settlement, backed by enforceable conditions and leverage, could do precisely that.

First, a settlement can provide Ukraine with a bespoke security guarantee — credible enough to deter renewed aggression but structured to avoid NATO Article 5 entanglement. This isn’t a vague promise; it is a contract with clear performance terms. The U.S. guarantee would stand as long as Russia adheres to its commitments. But if Russia violates the agreement, the snapback provisions would trigger instantly — not months later, not after diplomatic waffling — immediately unlocking full-scale U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defense, training and intelligence integration.

Just as important, the consequences of Russian cheating would be explicit, not theoretical.

If Moscow breaks the deal, the United States would reserve the option to openly back Ukraine in retaking every inch of territory — up to and including restoration to its pre-2014 borders. Moscow would know this going in. Deterrence works best when penalties are unmistakable.

And crucially, this would all be public. No more pretending, hedging or quiet back-channel shipments. The world — and Russia — would know that renewed aggression automatically and lawfully unleashes overwhelming Western support, with the U.S. leading confidently and unapologetically. That clarity is a deterrent in itself.

Equally important, this structure protects U.S. sovereignty in the agreement. If Ukraine violates its obligations, the American guarantee becomes void at our sole discretion. Not a bureaucratic process. Not a committee vote. The United States decides. That means Ukraine has every incentive to maintain discipline and treat the arrangement not as a blank check, but as a powerful partnership grounded in responsibility.

Second, a negotiated deal can generate tangible U.S. economic advantage. Ukraine holds minerals and rare earths essential to American industry, national security and technological supremacy. China knows this. Russia knows this. Only Washington’s old guard pretends resource control is not strategic policy. A structured agreement ensuring privileged U.S. access strengthens manufacturing, energy resilience, and economic security.

Third, a settlement can wedge open the relationship between Moscow and Beijing. Right now, the war has pushed Russia completely into China’s arms. That alignment is bad for the United States and for global balance. A disciplined settlement begins unwinding that dependency. America doesn’t need friendship with Moscow; it needs leverage over it. Realpolitik is about advantage, not affection.

Fourth, a deal can compartmentalize strategic theaters. If Russia insists on regional influence, the U.S. can demand reciprocal space in our hemisphere — particularly in Venezuela, narcotics interdiction, and energy-linked criminal networks — reducing adversarial reach in the Americas.

Critics will scream ‘Munich.’ They always do. But Adolf Hitler was leading a rising ideological empire bent on global conquest. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking regional positioning. Brutal, yes — but not irrational. Mature powers negotiate with rivals when negotiations produce superior outcomes.

Others claim any deal rewards aggression. That assumes deterrence is binary — victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is layered.

A settlement that leaves Russia bloodied, sanctioned, strategically constrained and facing automatic, overwhelming Western military escalation — potentially including U.S. support for Ukraine restoring its 2013 borders — if it cheats is not a reward. It is a warning carved into treaty stone.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian and financial realities matter. Endless war means endless dead Ukrainians, shattered cities and endless U.S. taxpayer exposure with no defined victory condition. That may thrill think tanks that never fight wars, but it is not serious governance.

Most importantly, a business-style settlement introduces accountability — currently absent from Washington’s ‘as long as it takes’ mantra. Under a structured deal, compliance is measurable. Triggers are automatic. Support is not improvised — it is guaranteed. Enforcement is not theoretical — it is built in. And unlike today, America would no longer need to whisper its involvement. It would act openly, decisively and with treaty authority.

The alternative? A forever war with rising nuclear risk, continued strategic drift, and deepening alignment between Russia and China. That is not strategy. It is inertia dressed as courage.

Realpolitik does not abandon values. It protects them intelligently. A disciplined, enforceable settlement — with clear snapback provisions benefiting both the U.S. and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and potentially support full territorial restoration if Russia cheats; and a guarantee revocable at America’s sole discretion if Ukraine violates terms — is not capitulation.

It is strategic control.

In geopolitics, as in business, the strongest player is not the one who insists on endless confrontation. It is the one who knows when to fight — and when to close the deal.

Tensions between Israel and Turkey are rising amid competing visions for Gaza’s reconstruction and widening strategic friction in Syria, even as both countries remain embedded in a U.S.-led diplomatic framework following the ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel has made clear it will not allow Turkish armed forces to operate inside Gaza, viewing Ankara as a destabilizing actor despite its public efforts to present itself as a reconstruction partner. Turkish sources told Fox News Digital that Ankara does not seek to deploy troops in Gaza, instead focusing on humanitarian aid, infrastructure projects and political influence. 

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, said Israel views Turkey as a strategic threat rather than a neutral actor. 

‘From Israel’s point of view, Turkey is the arsonist behaving like the firefighter in Gaza,’ Diker told Fox News Digital. ‘If Turkey is allowed to enter Gaza with several thousand armed men, you can guarantee that this Muslim Brotherhood country will destabilize Gaza and dismantle the very 20-point plan that President Trump has bet the farm on.’

Diker said President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions extend beyond Gaza, pointing to Turkey’s military presence in northwestern Syria and what he described as Ankara’s long-standing role enabling radical Islamist groups inside the country.

In Trump’s remarks at Mar-a-Lago on Monday at his press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he repeatedly praised Erdogan and downplayed concerns about a possible Israel-Turkey confrontation.

‘I know President Erdogan very well… he’s a very good friend of mine,’ Trump said. ‘Bibi respects him… They’re not going to have a problem. Nothing’s going to happen.’ Netanyahu smiled and didn’t comment.

At the same time, Trump aligned himself publicly with Netanyahu on Gaza’s future, issuing his strongest statement yet that Hamas must disarm.

‘They made an agreement that they were going to disarm,’ Trump said. ‘If they’re not going to disarm, those same countries will go and wipe out Hamas.’

According to Diker, the president is deliberately managing tensions with Ankara by keeping Erdogan inside the diplomatic framework rather than confronting him publicly.

‘President Trump is very, very good at keeping adversaries close, together with allies,’ Diker said. ‘That’s why he keeps saying that he likes Erdogan. He wants to keep Erdogan in the party. He wants to keep him close.’

Diker said Trump understands his own leverage in the region and believes he can coalesce Arab and Muslim states when it serves U.S. and Israeli interests, citing coordination during the first phase of the hostage deal.

Diker said Netanyahu is now walking a narrow line, trying not to undermine the framework Trump has built while ensuring Israel’s security red lines are maintained.

‘Israel will not allow Turkish Armed Forces in Gaza. It’s not going to happen,’ Diker said, adding that Israel may still be forced into limited compromises to preserve Trump’s broader support, particularly on Iran.

Beyond Gaza, Israel sees Turkey’s role in Syria as a growing point of friction. Ankara maintains influence across large swaths of northern Syria, while Israel has continued air operations aimed at Iranian targets.

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned in an analysis that Turkey views Israel-aligned regional cooperation as a direct challenge to its ambitions.

Ciddi cited a trilateral summit between Israel, Greece and Cyprus in Jerusalem as a flashpoint, arguing it signaled resistance to Turkey’s ‘Blue Homeland’ doctrine and broader maritime claims in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Following the summit, pro-Erdogan media outlets described Israel as a major threat, while Turkey increased military activity that alarmed U.S. allies, including airspace violations near Greece and reported efforts to expand radar coverage in Syria that could hinder Israeli operations against Iran.

Diker said Israel’s recognition of Somaliland adds another layer to the rivalry, particularly in the Red Sea region. ‘The Turks are working in Somalia. They are also working to control and influence what happens in the Red Sea region,’ Diker said. ‘Which is why Somaliland’s development is very, very important.’

He argued that the move gives Israel a strategic foothold along a vital maritime corridor.

‘Israel then has a strategic base, a forward base in Somaliland on the Red Sea,’ Diker said. ‘Very, very important, because it checkmates Turkey.’

Diker said the move was viewed in Ankara as a direct challenge to Turkish ambitions in the Horn of Africa, adding that the Trump administration had ‘expressed its understanding’ of Israel’s decision.

Despite Erdogan’s harsh rhetoric toward Israel and vocal support for the Palestinian cause, Turkish diplomatic sources say Ankara is acting pragmatically. While Turkey sees financial and political opportunity in Gaza’s reconstruction, those sources say Erdogan is aware there is little domestic appetite for sending Turkish troops into the enclave.

That gap between rhetoric and policy, analysts say, is likely to persist. As Diker put it, Trump is trying to keep the diplomatic structure intact while Israel works to contain what it sees as Turkey’s expanding regional footprint. ‘Trump does not want to topple the apple cart,’ Diker said. ‘He wants to try to keep everyone together so that they can move to stage two of the 20-point plan in Gaza.’

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado issued an open call for a transfer of power Saturday, urging the military to abandon Nicolás Maduro’s government and recognize opposition-backed candidate Edmundo González as president after the U.S. said Maduro had been captured.

Machado’s statement came hours after President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had captured Maduro following what he described as ‘large-scale’ military strikes targeting the Venezuelan government. Trump said Maduro and his wife were flown out of the country, a move that would mark the most direct U.S. military action against a Latin American head of state in decades.

‘The hour of freedom has arrived,’ wrote in a post on X. ‘This is the hour of the citizens. Those of us who risked everything for democracy on July 28th. Those of us who elected Edmundo González Urrutia as the legitimate President of Venezuela, who must immediately assume his constitutional mandate and be recognized as Commander-in-Chief of the National Armed Forces by all the officers and soldiers who comprise it.’

It remained unclear Saturday whether senior commanders have shifted allegiance or whether the opposition has secured control of state institutions.

Machado also called on Venezuelans inside the country to remain ‘vigilant, active and organized,’ signaling that further instructions would be communicated through official opposition channels. To Venezuelans abroad, she urged immediate mobilization to pressure foreign governments to recognize a new leadership in Caracas.

The U.S. conducted strikes on Caracas early Saturday morning and took Maduro and his wife into custody and flew them to New York to face drug trafficking charges.

Machado and González have repeatedly argued that the July 28 presidential election was stolen, pointing to an opposition-run parallel vote count that they say shows González won by a wide margin.

Venezuela’s electoral authorities, which are controlled by Maduro allies, declared him the winner with just under 52% of the vote, compared with roughly 43% for González. The government has rejected allegations of fraud.

The opposition, however, says it collected and published tally sheets from polling stations nationwide showing González received about two-thirds of the vote, compared with roughly 30% for Maduro — a claim cited by several foreign governments that declined to recognize the official results.

Maduro’s government has refused to release detailed precinct-level data to independently verify the outcome, further fueling accusations that the election did not reflect the will of voters.

While González is the opposition-backed presidential candidate, Machado has remained the dominant figure in Venezuela’s opposition movement. Machado won the opposition’s primary by a landslide before being barred from running by Maduro’s government, forcing the coalition to rally behind González as a substitute candidate.

Throughout the campaign, González publicly acknowledged Machado as the movement’s leader, with Machado continuing to direct strategy, messaging and voter mobilization efforts. Machado has remained the public face of the opposition, while González has largely played a formal, constitutional role tied to the presidency.

President Donald Trump’s House GOP critics are ripping the administration’s operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., was the first to criticize the Trump administration’s operation in Venezuela, again breaking from the majority of his party and butting heads with the commander-in-chief.

Massie, a longtime critic of U.S. foreign intervention, appeared to question the legality of the federal government’s Venezuela strikes.

‘If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law,’ Massie posted to X on Saturday morning.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed a four-count indictment against Maduro after Trump confirmed the U.S. took custody of the Venezuelan leader and his wife following strikes in the capital of Caracas.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement those charges were ‘Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.’

It’s not immediately clear what Maduro’s wife, Celia Flores, has been charged with.

In a follow-up posted on the charges, Massie said, ’25-page indictment but no mention of fentanyl or stolen oil. Search it for yourself.’

Trump said on Fox News that Maduro and Flores were being flown to the U.S.S. Iwo Jima, which will bring them to the U.S. where they will face criminal proceedings led by the Southern District of New York.

Massie’s criticism was followed by scathing comments by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., another Trump critic who is retiring from Congress early next week before finishing her term.

‘If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs, then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels? And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority, then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America?’ part of Greene’s statement read.

‘The next obvious observation is that by removing Maduro this is a clear move for control over Venezuelan oil supplies that will ensure stability for the next obvious regime change war in Iran. And of course, why is it ok for America to militarily invade, bomb, and arrest a foreign leader, but Russia is evil for invading Ukraine and China is bad for aggression against Taiwan? Is it only ok if we do it? (I’m not endorsing Russia or China).’

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., praised the operation itself but expressed concerns about what precedent is being set.

‘My main concern now is that Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan,’ Bacon said in a statement. ‘Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.’

Bacon is also retiring from Congress, but unlike Greene, he is serving out his full term.

The vast majority of Republican lawmakers unequivocally backed the operation, as expected. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., both said they expected congressional briefings from the Trump administration in the coming days when lawmakers return from a two-week recess. 

Vice President JD Vance was not physically present at President Donald Trump’s news conference announcing the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro because of heightened security and secrecy concerns, according to a spokesperson, despite being closely involved in the planning and execution of the operation.

Trump briefed the press on the mission hours after Maduro was taken into U.S. custody, flanked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth and chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen. Dan Caine. 

Vance publicly praised the operation on X but did not attend the briefing. Vance did meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday to discuss the strikes, but was not at Trump’s golf club Friday night where senior Trump officials monitored the mission because the national security team ‘was concerned a late-night motorcade movement by the Vice President while the operation was getting underway may tip off the Venezuelans.’ 

‘The Vice President joined by secure video conference throughout the night to monitor the operation. He returned to Cincinnati after the operation concluded.’

Due to ‘increased security concerns,’ Trump and Vance are limiting the ‘frequency and duration’ of time they spend together outside of the White House, the Vance spokesperson told Fox News Digital. 

‘Maduro is the newest person to find out that President Trump means what he says,’ Vance wrote on X after the operation was made public. 

‘And PSA for everyone saying this was ‘illegal’: Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narco-terrorism. You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas,’ he wrote in a separate post. 

Trump, during his news conference, revealed that the U.S. will ‘run’ Venezuela until a ‘safe, orderly’ transition of power can take place. 

Pressed on whether U.S. forces would remain inside the country, Trump did not rule out a sustained troop presence. ‘They always say boots on the ground – so we’re not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to,’ he said, confirming U.S. troops were already involved ‘at a very high level’ during the operation. 

Trump noted Venezuela’s vice president had been ‘picked by Maduro,’ but said U.S. officials were already engaging with her. ‘She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great,’ Trump said, adding that the issue was being handled directly by his team.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has been sworn in as Maduro’s successor, and Trump did not say whether the U.S. will move to install opposition leaders Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Urutia-Gonzalez. 

Vance, in the past, has voiced skepticism of U.S. interventions. 

In a Signal chat leaked after the Houthi strikes last March, Vance told a group of Trump Cabinet officials, ‘I think we are making a mistake.’

‘[Three] percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez Canal. Forty percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,’ Vance said. 

‘I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.’

Cuban leaders should be concerned following the U.S. military operation in Venezuela and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Saturday, as President Donald Trump signaled that his administration could shift its focus to the Caribbean island.

Cuba has long maintained a presence in Venezuela, with intelligence agents and security personnel embedded amid close relations between Havana and Caracas.

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, said Venezuela’s spy agency was ‘basically full of Cubans,’ as was Maduro’s security detail.

‘One of the biggest problems Venezuelans have is they have to declare independence from Cuba,’ he said during a news conference in which officials revealed details of the military operation. ‘They tried to basically colonize it from a security standpoint.’

He added that the communist island was ‘a disaster. It’s run by incompetent, senile men — and in some cases, not senile, but incompetent nonetheless.’

The secretary has repeatedly denounced Cuba and its leadership as a dictatorship and a failed state.

‘If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned — at least a little bit,’ Rubio said.

Trump said Cuba was something his administration would ‘end up talking about because Cuba is a failing nation right now — a very badly failing nation.’

‘And we want to help the people,’ he added. ‘It’s very similar in the sense that we want to help the people in Cuba, but we also want to help the people who were forced out of Cuba and are living in this country.’

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken by U.S. forces and brought aboard the USS Iwo Jima. They were expected to be transported to the U.S. to face federal charges.

The couple, along with other Venezuelan officials, face ‘drug trafficking and narco-terrorism conspiracies,’ according to an unsealed indictment posted on social media Saturday by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

They are accused of partnering with drug cartels to traffic drugs into the U.S.

Maduro and his wife ‘will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,’ Bondi wrote.

They are charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the U.S.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday evening condemned the Trump administration’s capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, calling the operation both ‘unlawful’ and ‘unwise.’

In a lengthy post on X, Harris acknowledged that Maduro is a ‘brutal’ and ‘illegitimate’ dictator but said that President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela ‘do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.’

‘Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable,’ Harris wrote. ‘That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise. We’ve seen this movie before.

‘Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.’

Harris made the remarks hours after the Trump administration confirmed that Maduro and his wife were captured and transported out of Venezuela as part of ‘Operation Absolute Resolve.’

The former vice president also accused the administration of being motivated by oil interests rather than efforts to combat drug trafficking or promote democracy.

‘The American people do not want this, and they are tired of being lied to. This is not about drugs or democracy. It is about oil and Donald Trump’s desire to play the regional strongman,’ Harris said. ‘If he cared about either, he wouldn’t pardon a convicted drug trafficker or sideline Venezuela’s legitimate opposition while pursuing deals with Maduro’s cronies.’

Harris, who has been rumored as a potential Democratic contender in the 2028 presidential race, additionally accused the president of endangering U.S. troops and destabilizing the region.

‘The President is putting troops at risk, spending billions, destabilizing a region, and offering no legal authority, no exit plan, and no benefit at home,’ she said. ‘America needs leadership whose priorities are lowering costs for working families, enforcing the rule of law, strengthening alliances, and — most importantly — putting the American people first.’

Maduro and his wife arrived at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn late Saturday after being transported by helicopter from the DEA in Manhattan after being processed.

Earlier in the day, Trump said that the U.S. government will ‘run’ Venezuela ‘until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.’

Harris’ office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Jasmine Baehr contributed to this report.