Prominent Democrat: If Maduro Arrest is Legitimate, US "Ripe for Invasion"

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville warned this week that if the United States embraces the idea that foreign governments can be overthrown on the grounds of corruption or authoritarianism, then America itself would be “ripe for invasion.”

Speaking during a televised interview, Carville was reacting to the Trump administration’s decision to carry out a military operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of longtime strongman Nicolás Maduro. Carville argued that the logic being used to justify the intervention abroad could easily be turned against the United States.

“If it was legitimate to invade a corrupt and attempted authoritarian nation,” Carville said, “then we better get troops on San Francisco and Boston, and all up and down the East and West Coast.” He described the U.S. political system as deeply compromised and warned that normalizing regime change as a policy tool undermines international order.

Carville also questioned who actually benefits from the operation in Venezuela. He argued that ordinary Americans would see no tangible gains from the action, while geopolitical and corporate interests would be the real winners. According to Carville, voters concerned about cost of living, wages, or healthcare are not part of the decision-making process driving U.S. foreign interventions.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured over the weekend and have since been indicted in federal court in New York on charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy and drug trafficking. The Trump administration has framed the operation as a major step toward justice and regional stability.

White House officials defended the move, saying it protects American interests and holds a criminal regime accountable. A spokesperson argued that President Donald Trump has succeeded where previous administrations failed by directly confronting Maduro.

Carville pushed back on that framing, saying Democrats must challenge not only the legality of the operation but also its broader implications. He warned that dismissing international norms and bypassing Congress sets a dangerous precedent, one that could erode U.S. credibility and invite instability rather than prevent it.

The debate reflects a deeper divide in American politics over the limits of presidential power, the use of military force, and whether the United States should define global legitimacy by its own standards alone.