Editor's note: In a single night, the political map of the Western Hemisphere was jolted. US jets struck Venezuelan soil, President Nicolas Maduro was captured and flown out of the country, and the shock waves rippled far beyond Caracas. This page brings together four perspectives that trace the full arc of the moment — from Washington's corridors of power to the shattered docks of La Guaira, from legal arguments to human cost.

Voices of dissent have risen across the United States following the military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, with critics mainly from Congress and social media questioning the action's legality and underlying motives.

US forces carried out airstrikes on military sites in Caracas on Saturday. The operation included the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Democratic lawmakers have led much of the criticism, focusing on constitutional concerns and possible resource-driven motives. Senator Tim Kaine called it "an unauthorized military attack on Venezuela" that bypasses Congress, saying he would force a Senate vote this week on a resolution to constrain the president's war powers.

"President (Donald) Trump's unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro ... is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere," Kaine said.

The Senate vote on the War Powers Resolution is expected as early as Tuesday, following a mandatory briefing by administration officials.

Senator Andy Kim said that the administration had misled Congress."Administration officials lied to Congress about goals in Venezuela," Kim said. "This operation sends a horrible and disturbing signal that targeting a head of state is acceptable US policy, violating our Constitution's war powers provisions and setting a dangerous precedent."

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mark Pocan, and Senator Jeff Merkley said the operation was driven by oil interests rather than national security.

Senator Ruben Gallego said: "This war is illegal; it's embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in one day. There is no justification for the United States to be at war with Venezuela — I lived through the consequences of an illegal war sold to the American people on lies."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the move reckless."This is reckless and without a plan — Trump's decision to capture Maduro bypasses Congress entirely, risking American lives and international stability without any strategy beyond bravado."

In contrast, Republican lawmakers largely applauded the operation as a decisive step against narco-terrorism and in the US interests, while others also raised objections.

Representative Thomas Massie questioned the legal foundation, "If the operation were constitutionally sound, authorities would not reference a 1934 firearm law in relation to the arrest of a foreign leader and his wife." Massie was referring to one of Maduro's four charges — possession of machine guns in violation of the US National Firearms Act of 1934.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized foreign interventions. "Regime change, funding foreign wars and Americans' tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes ... is what has most Americans furious," she said. "If US military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives, then why aren't we doing the same with Mexican cartels?"

Ana Navarro, a conservative political commentator, criticized suggestions that the US should manage Venezuela, as Trump had asserted."This is insane. We have to reject any effort by Donald Trump to run Venezuela — claiming the US will 'manage' another country is a severe infringement on sovereignty and completely unhinged," she said.

Maduro and Flores arrived later on Saturday in New York aboard a US aircraft, and were transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for federal processing.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, briefed on detention plans, called the capture "an act of war and a violation of federal and international law".

Online concerns

Online discussions echoed politicians' concerns. On Reddit, user Flash_ina_pan wrote: "As long as there's oil that Chevron, Exxon and their ilk don't have access to, war is always on the table. The whole 'drug trafficking' and 'human rights' narrative is just a PR layer to mask the fact that this is a resources grab."

User Agloe_Dreams said: "Profits come at the cost of the people. Ensuring profits requires ensuring control. Going to war with someone so you can set up your own profitable dictatorship has, historically speaking, not worked out great at all for anyone."

On X, @ZoeAlexandros posted:"The drug trafficking charges are a convenient front for a textbook regime change. If we actually cared about drug flows, we wouldn't be cozying up to narco-states when it suits our interests. This is about establishing a foothold, period."

YouTube comments included similar views. @CommonSenseCynic wrote: "It's the 2026 version of 'weapons of mass destruction'. The DEA(Drug Enforcement Administration) warrant is just a convenient legal wrapper for a military coup. If it were about drugs, they'd start with the cartels we actually share a border with, not a country with the largest oil reserves."

yifanxu@chinadailyusa.com