A new poll from The Economist and YouGov on Tuesday shows that 45 percent of U.S. adults oppose the United States using military force to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The Trump administration's consideration of potential military action against Maduro comes amid heightened tensions in Latin America. The question of whether to use U.S. military force to remove Maduro, who has held onto power despite international condemnation and severe economic sanctions, has drawn sharp debate within the United States.
Recent polling data reveals that a significant proportion of Americans oppose direct intervention, raising concerns about the political will for such an operation and its potential ramifications for U.S. foreign policy and regional stability.
The discussion occurs in the context of America's historical involvement in regime change operations in Latin America and ongoing scrutiny of executive power in military matters.
The poll shows that 17 percent favor U.S. military intervention to overthrow Maduro, and 38 percent are unsure.
The survey polled 1,564 U.S. adults from November 15 to November 17 and has a 3.5 percent margin of error.
The poll also shows that Maduro has a 6 percent favorability rating versus a 34 percent unfavorable rating. Sixty percent don't know.
The poll comes amid escalating operations by the Trump administration aimed at alleged drug traffickers and so-called "narco-terrorists" in the region, which have included strikes resulting in numerous fatalities and the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier near Venezuela's coast.
Experts and former officials have repeatedly questioned the feasibility and wisdom of a potential large-scale ground invasion, citing Venezuela's size, military loyalty to Maduro, and the risks of igniting prolonged conflict.
Robert Y. Shapiro to Newsweek via email on Tuesday: "That Trump has only 17 percent of the public supporting using military force against Venezuela indicates that few see Venezuela as posing a threat to the United States, justifying such military action in order to produce 'regime change.' It raises the 'wag the dog' question that Trump might invade Venezuela to rouse public political support at home with such 'good news,' to offset the bad news found in the performance of the economy and in the corrupt behavior of Trump and his administration."
David Pyne, Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, on X on Tuesday: "President Trump is doing a great job re-asserting the Monroe Doctrine to combat Russian and Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere. While I support his reported plan to overthrow the Communist Maduro regime in Venezuela with the help of the USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group which arrived in the Caribbean Sea two days ago, he should not do so until he ends all US involvement in his proxy war against Russia in Ukraine."
Trump in September on a deadly strike: "This morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the U.S. These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests. The Strike resulted in 3 male terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this Strike. BE WARNED -- IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU! The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American Citizens. NO LONGER. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
The future of U.S. policy toward Venezuela remains uncertain. Officially, the Trump administration has not committed to a full-scale invasion or to the use of conventional ground forces, but the presence of significant naval assets and repeated public musings about regime change have left many observers anticipating further potential military moves.