MSM Calls Trump 'Dictator' for Arresting a Real One

The U.S. operation that led to Nicolás Maduro's capture on January 3, 2026, was a targeted enforcement of longstanding federal indictments for narco-terrorism—

not an invasion or declaration of war. Yet prominent media voices and political critics have characterized it as reckless overreach and a violation of sovereignty. This narrative stands in stark contrast to the widespread celebrations among Venezuelans, who view the removal of a leader accused of electoral fraud and drug trafficking as long-overdue justice.

A Law Enforcement Action, Not Warfare

The operation executed existing U.S. warrants stemming from 2020 charges (expanded in 2026) alleging Maduro's conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States. It involved precision strikes to neutralize threats, resulting in Maduro's swift apprehension and transfer to New York for trial—no broader conflict, no occupation beyond transitional oversight.

Critics, however, have framed it differently:

Former Vice President Kamala Harris stated: "...this action was both unlawful and unwise... It is about oil and Donald Trump’s desire to play the regional strongman."

Senator Bernie Sanders called it "rank imperialism," adding: "It recalls the darkest

chapters of US interventions in Latin America."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned: "The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans."

The Guardian editorial described it as: "The illegal abduction of Venezuela’s president... Trump has turned the world’s superpower into a rogue state."

When M

The New York Times editorial: "Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Is Illegal and Unwise... Without congressional approval, his actions violate U.S. law."

Such concerns are selectively applied when viewed against historical precedents.

Venezuela Celebrates: The Response That Matters Most

While debates rage in U.S. commentary circles, Venezuelans themselves—both at home and in the diaspora—have responded with unequivocal relief and celebration. In Miami's Doral neighborhood, known as "Doralzuela," crowds gathered from dawn, singing the national anthem, waving flags, and embracing in

tears of joy. Similar scenes unfolded in Santiago, Madrid, Lima, and New York, with chants of "Libertad!" and signs reading "We Are Free."

Opposition leader María Corina Machado described it as "the end of the dictatorship," reflecting the sentiment of millions who endured hyperinflation, shortages, and the disputed 2024 election widely regarded as fraudulent.

The Disconnect in Domestic Criticism

Small protests in U.S. cities, including New York and Chicago, decried "imperialism" and "no blood for oil," echoing media concerns about sovereignty and escalation. These demonstrations, while exercising rightful free speech, overlook the indictment-based nature of the action and the evident gratitude from those most affected by Maduro's rule.

Maduro's arrival in New York for processing underscored the judicial focus: a standard perp walk en route to facing charges in federal court.

A Question of Perspective

The action addressed both a direct U.S. security interest (alleged drug trafficking) and a humanitarian crisis that displaced millions.

When the primary victims of a regime respond with hope and celebration, while distant critics lament the breach of protocol, the divergence is telling.

Accountability for serious indictments, welcomed by those long oppressed, does not equate to the aggression some have claimed.

the same people who called Maduro a "brutal dictator" for years suddenly rush to defend him despite spending a decade warning Trump is an authoritarian